When Does Bad Faith Lead to Corporate Liability?

G.R. No. 113103 & G.R. No. 116000. June 13, 1997

Imagine a small business repeatedly denied opportunities despite being the lowest bidder. This scenario highlights the severe consequences of bad faith in contractual dealings. In the Philippines, corporations can be held liable for damages when they act with gross and evident bad faith, impacting businesses and suppliers. This case examines the extent of that liability, particularly in government contracts.

Introduction

The consolidated cases of National Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and Growth Link, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, revolve around allegations of bad faith and breach of contract by the National Power Corporation (NPC) against Growth Link, Inc., a supplier. The central legal question is whether NPC acted in bad faith by blacklisting Growth Link and denying it opportunities to bid on projects, and the extent of damages that NPC should be liable for.

Growth Link claimed that NPC’s actions caused significant financial losses and damage to its reputation. The case demonstrates the importance of fair dealings and due process in contractual relationships, especially those involving government entities.

Legal Context

Several legal principles and statutes are central to this case. Key among these is the concept of “gross and evident bad faith,” which, if proven, can lead to liability for damages. The Civil Code of the Philippines provides the framework for determining liability in contract and quasi-delict (negligence). Specifically, Article 1170 of the Civil Code states:

“Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.”

This provision establishes the general principle that parties to a contract must act in good faith and fulfill their obligations. Failure to do so can result in liability for damages. Bad faith, in this context, implies a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong. It means breach of known duty through some motive of interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.

The case also touches on the rules governing public bidding and government contracts. Generally, government agencies are not obligated to award contracts to the lowest bidder unless the contrary appears. This principle allows government agencies to reject any and all bids, as provided in Section 393 of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual. However, this discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in bad faith.

For example, imagine a private construction firm bidding for a government infrastructure project. Even if the firm submits the lowest bid, the government agency can reject it if the firm has a history of poor performance or fails to meet specific technical requirements. However, if the agency rejects the bid due to personal biases or corrupt motives, it may be held liable for damages.

Case Breakdown

Growth Link, Inc., a supplier of industrial parts, had been an accredited supplier for NPC since 1982. Over time, disputes arose regarding the quality and specifications of certain delivered items. NPC eventually blacklisted Growth Link, preventing it from participating in future biddings.

Growth Link filed a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The RTC ruled in favor of Growth Link, finding that NPC acted with gross and evident bad faith. The court awarded various damages, including:

• Cost of replaced piston skirts and other delivered items
• Unrealized commissions on cancelled orders and disregarded bids
• Compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages
• Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses

NPC appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC’s finding of bad faith but reduced the amounts awarded for damages. Specifically, the CA:

• Upheld the RTC’s findings of gross evident bad faith on the part of NPC.
• Reversed the award for unrealized commissions on mere Foreign Inquiries, deeming them too speculative.
• Reduced the awards for compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages.
• Removed the finding of solidary liability for the individual respondents.

Both NPC and Growth Link then appealed to the Supreme Court. NPC questioned the award of attorney’s fees, while Growth Link sought to restore the original amounts awarded by the RTC.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, stated:

“We find the instant consolidated petitions to be both wanting in merit.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that NPC’s actions demonstrated a clear disregard for Growth Link’s rights and the principles of fair dealing. The Court also highlighted that even though government agencies have the discretion to reject bids, this discretion must be exercised in good faith.

“Statements made in Answer are merely statements of fact which the party filing it expect to prove, but they are not evidence. With more reason, statement made in the complaint, or in this case, in the Petition for Mandamus with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Damages, which are not directly refuted in the Answer, are deemed admissions but neither are they evidence that will prevail over documentary proofs.”

Practical Implications

This case underscores the importance of good faith in contractual relationships, especially those involving government entities. Businesses dealing with government agencies should ensure that they document all communications and transactions to protect their interests. Government agencies must also exercise their discretion fairly and transparently to avoid accusations of bad faith.

Key Lessons

• Good Faith is Essential: Parties must act honestly and fairly in fulfilling their contractual obligations.
• Due Process: Government agencies must provide due process to suppliers before blacklisting them.
• Documentation: Businesses should maintain thorough records of all transactions and communications.
• Limited Discretion: Government agencies’ discretion to reject bids is not absolute and must be exercised in good faith.

For example, a construction company bidding on a government project should carefully review the bidding requirements and ensure that it meets all qualifications. If the company is unfairly disqualified, it should seek legal advice and document all evidence of bias or improper conduct.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What constitutes bad faith in a contractual relationship?

A: Bad faith involves a dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, or conscious wrongdoing. It means breaching a known duty with a motive of interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.

Q: Can a government agency reject any bid, even if it’s the lowest?

A: Yes, government agencies typically reserve the right to reject any and all bids. However, this discretion must be exercised in good faith and not arbitrarily or with corrupt motives.

Q: What should a business do if it believes it has been unfairly blacklisted by a government agency?

A: The business should gather all relevant documentation, seek legal advice, and consider filing a petition for mandamus to compel the agency to provide due process and fair treatment.

Q: What types of damages can be awarded in cases of bad faith?

A: Damages can include actual losses (e.g., cost of goods, lost profits), compensatory damages, moral damages (for emotional distress), exemplary damages (to punish the wrongdoer), and attorney’s fees.

Q: What is the significance of documenting communications in government contracts?

A: Documentation provides a clear record of agreements, representations, and actions, which can be crucial in proving or disproving allegations of bad faith or breach of contract.

Q: How does this case affect future government contracts?

A: This case reinforces the importance of transparency and fairness in government contracting. It serves as a reminder that government agencies must exercise their discretion responsibly and avoid actions that could be perceived as biased or malicious.

Q: What is a petition for mandamus?

A: A petition for mandamus is a legal action that compels a government agency or official to perform a duty that they are legally obligated to perform.

Q: Are government agencies required to award contracts to the lowest bidder?

A: No, government agencies are not automatically required to award contracts to the lowest bidder. They can consider other factors, such as the bidder’s qualifications, experience, and the overall advantage to the government.

ASG Law specializes in contract law, government regulations, and dispute resolution. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.