Hernandez vs Npc

G.R. No. 145328

March 23, 2006

EDUARDO F. HERNANDEZ  vs. NA!ONA" #O$ER %OR#ORA!ON, respondent

et

al, petitioners

%H!%O&NAZAR!O,  J.:  J.: DOCTRINE:  Although Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits any court from issuing injunctions in cases involving infrastructure projects, the prohibition extends only to the issuance of  injunctions injunctions or restraining restraining orders against against administrat administrative ive acts in controversies controversies involving  facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases. n issues clearly outside this dimension and involving !uestions of la", this #ourt declared that courts could not be prevented from exercising their po"er to restrain or prohibit administrative acts. 1 $n such cases, let the hammer fall and let it fall hard. FA%'( NAPOCOR FA%'( NAPOCOR began the construction of steel poles or toers in connection ith its Poer Trans!ission Pro"ect. Petitioners in search of the adverse e#ects$ got hold of  published articles and studies lin%ing the incidence of a fecund of illnesses to e&posure to electro!agnetic 'elds. These illnesses range fro! cancer to leu%e!ia. Petitioners aired this groing concern to the NAPOCOR$ hich conducted a series of !eetings ith the!. NAPOCOR received (a% fro! Representative )rancis *oseph +. Escudero$ ho in his Privilege ,peech dated - /a0 -111$ denounced the cavalier !anner ith hich Napocor ignored safet0 and consultation re2uire!ents in the 2uestioned pro"ect. Negotiations being unsuccessful$ petitioners 'led a Co!plaint for Da!ages ith Pra0er for for the the Issua Issuanc nce e of a Te!por e!porar ar0 0 Rest Restra rain inin ing g Orde Orderr and3 and3or or a 4rit rit of Preli Preli!i !ina nar0 r0 In"u In"unc ncti tion on agai agains nstt NAPO NAPOCO COR. R. The The loe loerr cour courtt then then issu issued ed an orde orderr te!p te!por orar aril0 il0 restra restraine ined d the respon responden dentt fro! fro! energi5 energi5ing ing and trans!i trans!itti tting ng high high voltag voltage e electri electric c current through the said pro"ect. NAPOCOR 'led a Petition for Certiorari ith Pra0er for Te!porar0 Restraining Order and Preli!inar0 In"unction ith the Court of Appeals assailing the above order b0 the trial court. Alluding to Presidential Decree No. -6-6 7-16-8$ %Prohibiting 7-16-8$ %Prohibiting #ourts from  $ssuing &estraining rders or Preliminary $njunctions in #ases $nvolving $nfrastructure and Natural &esource Development Projects of, and Public 'tilities perated by, the (overnment,9 (overnment,9 particularl0 ,ec. -$ NAPOCOR stalartl0 sought the dis!issal of the case on the ground of lac% "urisdiction. Presidential Decree No. -6-6 provides: The trial court$ thus$ en"oined the NAPOCOR fro! further preparing and installing high  voltage cables to the steel p0lons erected near petitioners ho!es and fro! energi5ing and trans!itting high voltage electric current through said cables hile the case is pending 'nal ad"udication

The Court of Appeals hoever reversed the trial courts order hence$ this petition for revie. !''UE( 4hether or not the trial court !a0 issue a te!porar0 restraining order and preli!inar0 in"unction to en"oin the construction and operation of the steel poles or toers b0 the NAPOCOR$ notithstanding Presidential Decree No. -6-6. HE"D( A))IR/ATI;E. Presidential Decree No. -6-6 as issued prohibiting "udges fro! issuing restraining orders against govern!ent infrastructure pro"ects. In part$ the decree sa0s$ 9No court in the Philippines shall have "urisdiction to issue an0 restraining order$ preli!inar0 in"unction or preli!inar0 order$ preli!inar0 !andator0 in"unction in any case, dispute or controversy involving an infrastructure project.9 Reali5ing the i!portance of this decree$ this Tribunal had issued di#erent circulars to i!ple!ent this particular la. 4hile its sole provision ould appear to enco!pass all cases involving the i!ple!entation of pro"ects and contracts on infrastructure$ natural resource develop!ent and public utilities$ this rule$ hoever$ is not absolute as there are actuall0 instances hen Presidential Decree No. -6-6 should not 'nd application. In a spate of  cases$ this Court declared that although Presidential Decree No. -6-6 prohibits an0 court fro! issuing in"unctions in cases involving infrastructure pro"ects$ the prohibition e&tends onl0 to the issuance of in"unctions or restraining orders against ad!inistrative acts in controversies involving facts or the e&ercise of discretion in technical cases. On issues clearl0 outside this di!ension and involving 2uestions of la$ this Court declared that courts could not be prevented fro! e&ercising their poer to restrain or prohibit ad!inistrative acts.  In the case at bar$ petitioners sought the issuance of a preli!inar0 in"unction on the ground that the NAPOCOR Pro"ect i!pinged on their right to health as enshrined in  Article II$ ,ection -< of the -16= Constitution. To boot$ petitioners$ !oreover$ harp on respondents failure to conduct prior consultation ith the!$ as the co!!unit0 a#ected b0 the pro"ect$ in star% violation of  ,ection >= of the ?ocal +overn!ent Code hich provides: 9no pro"ect or progra! shall be i!ple!ented b0 govern!ent authorities unless the consultations !entioned are co!plied ith$ and prior approval of the )anggunian concerned is observed.9 )ro! the foregoing$ hether there is a violation of petitioners constitutionall0 protected right to health and hether respondent NAPOCOR had indeed violated the ?ocal +overn!ent Code provision on prior consultation ith the a#ected co!!unities are veritable 2uestions of la that invested the trial court ith "urisdiction to issue a TRO and subse2uentl0$ a preli!inar0 in"unction. As such$ these 2uestions of la divest the case fro! the protective !antle of Presidential Decree No. -6-6.

The rule on preli!inar0 in"unction !erel0 re2uires that unless restrained$ the act co!plained of ill probabl0 violate his rights and tend to render the "udg!ent ine#ectual. @ere$ there is ade2uate evidence on record to "ustif0 the conclusion that the pro"ect of  NAPOCOR probabl0 i!perils the health and safet0 of the petitioners so as to "ustif0 the issuance b0 the trial court of a rit of preli!inar0 in"unction. /oreover$ the ?ocal +overn!ent Code$ re2uires conference ith the a#ected co!!unities of a govern!ent pro"ect. NAPOCOR$ palpabl0$ !ade a shortcut to this re2uire!ent.  After all$ for a rit of preli!inar0 in"unction to be issued$ the Rules do not re2uire that the act co!plained of be in violation of the rights of the applicant. Indeed$ hat the Rules re2uire is that the act co!plained of be )ro*a*l+  in violation of the rights of the applicant. nder the Rules of Court$ probabilit0 is enough basis for in"unction to issue as a provisional re!ed0$ hich is di#erent fro! in"unction as a !ain action here one needs to establish absolute certaint0 as basis for a 'nal and per!anent in"unction.