DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH) Secretary SIMEON A.

DATUMANONG; DPWH
UNDERSECRETARY MANUEL M. BONOAN; DPWH CENTRAL OFFICE DIRECTOR IV CLARITA A.
BANDONILLO; DPWH REGION VI REGIONAL DIRECTOR WILFREDO AGUSTINO; DPWH ILOILO CITY
DISTRICT ENGINEER VICENTE M. TlNGSON, JR.; and ENGINEERS RUBY P. LAGOC, MA VI V. JERECIA and
ELIZABETH GARDOSE

versus

MARIA ELENA L. MALAGA

Facts:

Maria Elena Malaga (Malaga) is a private contractor and the lowest bidder for two road
concreting projects of the DPWH. However, before the scheduled bidding, one of the roads condition
has severely deteriorated due to a typhoon. The DPWH District Engineer requested to his superior, the
DPWH Region IV Director, that the road be implemented under administration, that this project be
undertaken directly and immediately by the government on account of emergeny, and said project be
taken out of the list of projects bid out for private contractors. In turn, the DPWH Director endorsed this
to the Secretary of DPWH. Since no response came from the Secretary of DPWH, the DPWH Region IV
continued with the bidding, thus Malaga won as the lowest bidder.

A day after the bidding was concluded, the Secretary of DPWH issued a memorandum with
respect to the damaged road ordering that it be taken under administration. Few days later, the
Regional Director informed Malaga of the memorandum and that the said project was no longer
awarded to petitioner. Malaga replied with formal written demands that the project be awarded to her
in spite of the memorandum, under pain of civil action and claim for damages. The Director wrote back
disavowing any liability and that the direcive from the Secretary is a supervening event that prevented
the award of this project untill specified otherwise and the said project shall be taken under
administration as directed.

Malaga filed a civil case against DPWH officials and claimed that these officials acted together, in
cooperation and collusion, to deprive Malaga of the said project even after she won the bidding contest.
Furthermore, that said officials acted with malice and bad faith and intentionally delayed the process to
defeat her valid claim and to "harass and teach her a lesson not to file cases against the officials even
when there is valid and lawful reasons to do so."

Issues:

Whether or not Malaga has right to the said project being the one to win as the lowest bidder.
 Whether or not there was malice and bad faith upon the actions of the officials in refusal to
award said project.

Held:

No, Malaga has no right to said project as it was not yet awarded to her. Due process in
awarding projects to private contractors requires "post-qualification" process. The said process was not
finalized due to the memorandum of the Secretary of DPWH. Thus, there is no cause of action for
Malaga as the supposed claim for the project was non-existent.

As for the other matter, there was no malice and bad faith upon the actions of the officials in
refusal to award said project because the said officials just acted upon the memorandum from the
Secretary of DPWH.