G.R. No. L-29171 April 15, 1988 INDUSTRIAL POWER SALES, INC., petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. DUA SINSUAT !"#., !" $l., respondents-appellees. %ACTS& Two invitations to bid were advertised by the Bureau of Supply Coordination of the Department of General Services. The first called for ei ght units of truc for the use of the Bureau of Telecommunications. Telecommunications. The invitation to Bid as well as the re!uisition itself contained a proviso limiting the offers to foreign made products on a C"# basis, $ort of %anila. The second invitation to Bid announced that both C"# $ort of %anila and #&B %anila !uotations would be accepted and made part of bid re!uirements.
'mong the bidders bidders were "ndustrial "ndustrial $ower Sales, "nc ("$S") and Delta %otor %otor Corporation (Delta). (Delta). The bids were deliberated by the Committee Committee on 'wards 'wards and was awarded to "$S". Delta protested the award to "$S" to the Bureau of Telecommunications Telecommunications claiming that the trucs offered by "$S" were not factory built, as stipulated in the re!uisition and invitation to bid. The Director ruled that the bidding has been made in strict compliance with technical specifications and re!uirements stated by the Bureau of Telecommunications. Telecommunications. Delta*s ne+t move was to file with the &ffice of the Secretary of General Services (Sinsuat). The latter informed the 'cting Director of Supply that the Department had already approved Delta*s price, and categorically categorically direct him to award to Delta the purchase order of the eight trucs with the least possible delay. This notice was given notwithstanding all the Government agencies concerned already agreed on the correctness of the award to "$S" Bureau of Telecommunications, Telecommunications, the Department of $ublic ors Communications to which said Bureau of Telecommunications Telecommunications pertains, the Bureau of Supply, which which had direct supervision and control of the bidding, and of course, the Committee on 'wards. 'wards. "$S" appealed from the Secretary*s decision to award the purchase contract Delta to the &ffice of the $resident as well as the &ffice of the 'uditor General. The appeal notwithstanding, the /etter-&rder in favor of Delta was released. "$S" then filed with the C#" a petition certiorari and mandamus, with application for preliminary and mandatory in0unction. The verdict wen against "$S". #rom the 0udgment of the C#", "$S" appealed to the Court. The plea made in behalf of Secretary Sinsuat claims that "$S" had gone to Court without first e+hausting all administrative remedies. ISSUE& hether or not there was an e+haustion of 'dministrative 1emedies.
certiorari or prohibition of determinations of HELD& Certain universally accepted a+ioms govern 0udicial review through the e+traordinary actions of certiorari or administrative officers officers or agencies2 first, that before said a ctions may be entertained in the courts of 0ustice, it must be shown that all the administrative remedies prescribed by law or ordinance have been e+hausted3 and second, that the administrative decision may properly be annulled or set aside only upon a clear showing that the administrative official official or tribunal has acted without or in e+cess of 0urisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. 1 There are however e+ceptions to the principle nown as e+haustion of administrative remedies, these being2 (4) where the issue is purely a legal one, (5) where the controverted act is patently illegal or was done without 0urisdiction or in e+cess of 0urisdiction3 (6) where the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of ego of the $resident bear the latter7s implied or assumed approval, unless actually disapproved3 or (8) where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of 0udicial intervention. "n view of these doctrines, there is no need for the e+haustion of administrative remedies in the case at bar because Secretary Sinsuat indeed acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac or e+cess of 0urisdiction.
