Nerwin v.
PNOC  When petitioner learned about this, they filed this complaint
Facts:
 R. A. 8975 expressly prohibits any court, EXCEPT SC, from
issuing any TRO, preliminary injunction, etc. against the
Government xxxxx from: xxxxx (b) bidding or awarding of a
contract or project of the National Government xxxxxx
 In 1999, National Electrification Administration (NEA) made an
invitation to pre-qualify and bid for a contract, otherwise known as
IPB No. 80, for the supply and delivery of about 60k pieces of
wood poles and 20k pieces of cross arms needed in the country’s
Rural Electrification Project.
 Nerwin was one of the 4 bidders who qualified and bid in the
contract and he was the lowest. Even though he was the lowest,
NEA’s administrator, Conrado Estrella, recommended the board of
directors of NEA to award the contract to Nerwin for he is the
lowest bidder and there was a big difference between the 2nd
lowest bidder.
 However, NEA’s board of directors made Resolution No. 32
decreasing the IPB No. 80 material requirements by 50%. Nerwin
contends that it was only a ploy to accommodate the losing bidder.
 And then, the other losing bidders such as Tri State and Pacific
Synnergy filed a complaint alleging that Nerwin falsified
documents in the pre-qualification in the IPB No. 80. But it was
then validated by the Gov’t Corporate Counsel.
 On the other hand, respondent PNOC claiming to be under the
Dep’t of Energy, issued an invitation to pre-qualify and bid for
wooden poles needed for its Samar Rural Electrification Project or
“O-ILAW Project).
alleging that it was an attempt to subject the materials in the IPB
No. 80 to the O-ILAW Project and prayed that a TRO be issued.
 Respondent as defense states that petitioner has no cause of action
for:
1. It violates the rule that government infrastructure projects
were not to be subjected to TROs;
2. It contravened the mandatory prohibition against non-forum
shopping; and
3. The corporate president had no authority to sign and file the
complaint
 RTC ruled in favor of Nerwin granting the TROs and declaring
PNOC in default. However, CA reversed the decision stating that
RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the TROs.
 Nerwin now appeals to SC.
Issue:
 WON the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the TRO
against PNOC
Held: YES.
 SC states that the CA is correct in ruling that RTC gravely abused
its discretion in entertaining an application for TRO/preliminary
injunction, and worse, in issuing a preliminary injunction through
the assailed order enjoining petitioners‟ sought bidding for its O-
ILAW Project which was section 3 and section 4 of RA8975.
 It is a violation of RA 8975 which was approved on Nov. 7, 2000,
therefore, already existing at the time RTC issued the assailed
TRO dated July, 20 and December 29, 2003. RA 8975 clearly and
expressly PROHIBITS any court except SC from doing such
actions.
 SC then fined the presiding RTC Judge of 40k for gross
misconduct and gross ignorance of the law
Doctrine: NCC5