G.R. No. 214864 - PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY (PPA), REPRESENTED BY OSCAR M.SEVILLA, GENERAL MANAGER, BENJAMIN B. CECILIO, ASSISTANT MANAGER FOR OPERATIONS, AND SISALI B. ARAP, PORT MANAGER, VS. NASIPIT INTEGRATED ARRASTRE AND STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. (NIASSI), REPRESENTED BY RAMON CALO.

Ruling

Accordingly, the rules and regulations issued by the PPA for the public bidding constituted the advertisement to bid on the contract, while the bid proposals submitted by the bidders constituted the offer. The reply of respondent PPA shows its acceptance or rejection of the respective offers. x x x PPA categorically awarded the contract to the petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of the latter's bid proposal. This is the acceptance of petitioner's offer as contemplated by the law. A thorough reading of the required documents clearly shows that they had no material or significant bearing to the perfection of the contract. These were mere formal requirements that will not affect the award of the contract to the petitioner. If at all, the need to submit the documents in question pertains to the issuance of the written evidence of the contract. xxxx Verily, the Holdover Authority (HOA) granted by the private respondent and the series of extensions allowing the petitioner to operate provisionally the arrastre service confirm the perfection of their contract despite the delay in its consummation due to acts attributable to the private respondents. But it cannot be gainsaid that the series of extensions constitute partial fulfillment and execution of the contract of cargo handling services. xxxx It is therefore Our submission that a perfected contract of cargo handling services existed when the petitioner won the bidding, given the Notice of Award and conformed (sic) to the conditions set forth in the Notice of Award because the requirements prescribed in the Notice of Award have no bearing on the perfection of the contract. On the contrary, it amounted to a qualified acceptance of petitioner's offer, a clear legal right to continue its operations in the port. Since the respondent is bound by the contract, the act of taking over the cargo handling service from the petitioner is violative of its right. [39] (Emphasis supplied) In view of the foregoing CA decision, and this Court's decision in G.R. No. 174136 affirming the same, the RTC directed the parties to submit their simultaneous memoranda on the issue of whether the Amended Petition had been rendered moot and academic. [40] On the basis of such memoranda, Judge Abul issued a Resolution [41] dated June 1, 2011 (June 2011 RTC Resolution) dismissing the Amended Petition for being moot and academic. The June 2011 RTC Resolution observed that since the CA had already made a definitive ruling that a contract had been perfected between the parties, the RTC had "nothing left to do" in respect of the Amended Petition. [42] However, on NIASSI's Motion for Reconsideration, the RTC issued a Resolution [43] dated September 20, 2011 (September 2011 RTC Resolution) reversing the June 2011 RTC Resolution. The dispositive portion of the September 2011 RTC Resolution reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is granted. The defendant is hereby ordered to execute a formal