155.

Information Technology Foundation vs Comelec

G.R. No. 159139. January 13, 2004

FACTS:
This case involves the bidding for procurement by sale or lease of supplies, equipment, materials or services for the implementation
of the Automated Election System for the May 10, 2004 elections.

A petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 was filed by Petitioners seeking to declare null and void Resolution No. 6074 of the
Commission on Elections (Comelec), which awarded "Phase II of the Modernization Project of the Commission to Mega Pacific
Consortium (MPC), among others. Petitioners allege irregularities with the bidding process and non-compliance with eligibility as
well as technical and procedural requirements by Comelec.

Respondents claim that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies, thus it acted prematurely by filing this instant petition.
According to respondents, the Report should have been appealed to the Comelec en banc, pursuant to Section 55 and 58 of RA
9184. In the absence of such appeal, the determination and recommendation of the BAC had become final.

ISSUE:
Is petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies justifiable?

RULING:
Yes.

Respondent Comelec came out with its en banc Resolution No. 6074 dated April 15, 2003, awarding the project to Respondent MPC
even before the BAC managed to issue its written report and recommendation on April 21, 2003. Thus, how could petitioners have
appealed the BAC's recommendation or report to the head of the procuring entity (the chairman of Comelec), when the Comelec en
banc had already approved the award of the contract to MPC even before petitioners learned of the BAC recommendation?

In Paat v. Court of Appeals, SC enumerated the instances when the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies may be
disregarded, as follows:
"(1) when there is a violation of due process,
(2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question,
(3) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
(4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned,
(5) when there is irreparable injury,
(6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and
assumed approval of the latter,
(7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable,
(8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim,
(9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings,
(10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, and
(11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention."
 
The present controversy precisely falls within the exceptions listed as Nos. 7, 10 and 11: "(7) when to require exhaustion of
administrative remedies would be unreasonable; (10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy, and (11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention." As already stated,
Comelec itself made the exhaustion of administrative remedies legally impossible or, at the very least, "unreasonable."

In any event, the peculiar circumstances surrounding the unconventional rendition of the BAC Report and the precipitate awarding
of the Contract by the Comelec en banc — plus the fact that it was racing to have its Contract with MPC implemented in time for
the elections in May 2004 (barely four months away) — have combined to bring about the urgent need for judicial intervention,
thus prompting this Court to dispense with the procedural exhaustion of administrative remedies in this case.