Mandatory or Prohibitory Laws NERWIN v.

PNOC SANTOS
G.R. No. 167057 April 11, 2012 Bersamin, J.
KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER

Art. 5 of NCC- Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law
itself authorizes their validity.
RECIT-READY / SUMMARY

Nerwin won the bid in NEA’s invitation for IBP No. 80. Subsequently, PNOC, purportedly to be under the Dept. of Energy,
released another invitation for the O-ILAW Project to which Nerwin protested by filing with the RTC a petition for TRO to
which the RTC granted. Respondents question the validity of the RTC TRO as it is in violation of RA No. 8975. The SC ruled
that, as according to Art. 5 of the NCC, the RTC judge indeed erred in granting the TRO as RA No. 8975, a prohibitory law,
only allows the SC to issue TRO’s with regard to Government construction projects.
FACTS
The National Electrification Administration (NEA) published an invitation to pre-qualify and to bid for a contract (IBP No.
80) for the supply and delivery of about 60,000 pieces of woodpoles and 20,000 pieces of crossarms needed for the
country’s Rural Electrification Project. Nerwin Industries Corporation (NERWIN) was one of the 4 companies to qualify and
subsequentlywon as the lowest bidder. However, NEA released Resolution No. 32 which reduced the requirements for IBP
No. 80 by 50%. Nerwin protested that it was an act to accommodate a losing bidder to which the Government Corporate
Counsel ruled in favor of Nerwin.

Following the events, PNOC-Energy Development Corporation (PNOC) purporting to be under the Department of Energy,
issued another invitation to pre-qualify and to bid for wooden poles needed for the O-ILAW project. Nerwin, in protesting
that this was just a ruse to subject a portion of IBP No 80 to a losing bidder, filed for a temporary restraining order with the
RTC to which the RTC granted.

Respondents now question the act of the RTC in issuing a TRO for being in violation of RA No. 8975 which expresslyprohibits
any court, except the Supreme Court, from issuing any TRO, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction to
restrain, prohibit or compel the Government, or any of its subdivisions or officials, or any person or entity, whether public or
private, acting under the Governments direction, from the bidding or awarding of a construction contract or project of the
National Government.
ISSUES / RATIO ARTICLES/LAWS INVOLVED
1. WON the RTC violated R.A. 8975. Art. 5. NCC
Republic Act No. 8975 – ** A PROHIBITORY LAW
“An act to ensure implementation and completion of
Government infrastructure by PROHIBITING LOWER COURTS (in
this case, RTC) from issuing Temporary Restraining Orders.”

HELD
YES. Article 5 of the NCC expressly states that acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall
be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity. In the present case, the judge of the RTC clearly violated RA No.
8975 which is a prohibitory law. The said law specifically states that the Supreme Court is the only court that has the power
to issue a TRO against the Government in regards to the governments construction projects or contracts.”

OPINION (CONCURRING) OPINION (DISSENTING)