Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
vs
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
vs
Facts:
2. Whether the increased terminal fees imposed by the winning bidder, GMCAC, is legal;
Held:
1. No. Public respondents thus committed no grave abuse of discretion in determining that
GMR has complied with the technical qualifications insofar as the absence of
Unsatisfactory Performance Record is concerned.
2. Yes. On the legality of the increased terminal fees imposed by GMCAC, this is based on
the right granted under the Concession Agreement to collect such fees. For this kind of
BOT projects, the law expressly provides that the project proponent operates the facility
over a fixed term during which it is allowed to charge facility users appropriate tolls, fees,
rentals and charges not exceeding those proposed in its bid or as negotiated and
incorporated in the contract to enable the project proponent to recover its investment and
operating and maintenance expenses in the project.
3. No. Petitioners failed to establish such actual right that needs to be protected by
injunctive relief. There being no violation of any law, regulation or the bidding rules, nor
any arbitrariness or unfairness committed by public respondents, the presumption of
regularity of the bidding for the MCIA Project must stand.
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 211737 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The petition in G.R. No. 214756 is DENIED for lack of sufficient legal and factual
bases.