Civil Code: Persons, Family, and Relations government infrastructure projects are not

Topic: Mandatory or Prohibitory Laws subject to TROs. RTC granted the TRO.
 RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, Nerwin.
Relevant Article: Art 5 of the Civil Code  CA ruled in favor of the respondents, NEA.
Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or
Hence, this Petition.
prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law
itself authorizes their validity. Issue:
Whether or not CA is incorrect in dismissing
Nerwin Industries Corporation v PNOC-Energy the case pursuant to RA 8975 which
Development Corporation prohibits the issuance of TRO except
G.R. No. 167057, April 11, 2012 Supreme Court to government infrastructure
Ponente: Justice Bersamin projects.
Rulings:
Facts:
 No, CA is correct.
 National Electrification Administration (NEA)  Art 5 of the Civil Code provides that acts
published an invitation to pre-qualify and executed against the provisions of the
thereafter to bid for IBP-80 contract for the mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void.
supply and delivery of 60,000 pcs woodpoles  In relation to this case, Section 3 of RA 8975
and 20,000 pcs cross-arms needed for the clearly prohibits the issuance of TROs,
country’s rural electrification projects. preliminary injunctions, and preliminary
 Nerwin Industries Corporation (Nerwin) mandatory injunctions against government
qualified to participate in the bidding for the by courts except the Supreme Court.
IBP-80 contract and emerged as the lowest
bidder. Therefore, the Court, speaking thru Justice Bersamin,
 NEA’s Board of Directors issued a resolution denied the petition and upheld the decision of the
to decrease the material requirements by appellate court that the RTC had committed grave
50% for the IBP-80 contract to which Nerwin abuse in issuing TRO in blatant violation of the Rules
protested. of Court and established jurisprudence.
 Losing bidders, Tri State and Pacific Synergy
filed a complaint about the alleged
falsification of documents by Nerwin during
the pre-qualification stage.
 Finding a way to nullify the contract, NEA
sought the opinion of the Government
Corporate Counsel who upheld Nerwin’s
eligibility.
 NEA allegedly negotiated with other bidders
relative to IBP-80 contract, prompting Nerwin
(petitioner) to file for a complaint of specific
performance with prayer to issue a writ of
preliminary injunction, to which the RTC
granted.
 In the interim, PNOC- Energy Development
Corporation (respondent) published an
invitation to pre-qualify and to bid for wooden
poles for its O-Ilaw Project.
 Nerwin (petitioner) filed a civil action in the
RTC Manila alleging that the invitation to
pre-qualify and to bid for the O-Ilaw Project
was an attempt to subject portion of the IBP-
80’s items to another bidding and praying
that a TRO issue to enjoin respondents’
proposed bidding for the wooden poles.
 PNOC-Energy (respondent) sought the
dismissal stating that it violated the rule that