Hernandez Vs NPC

Hernandez vs NPC In the case at bar, petitioners sought the issuance of a
Facts preliminary injunction on the ground that the Napocor

Sometime in 1996, National Power Corporation (Napocor) project impinged on their right to health as enshrined in the
began the construction of 29 decagon-shaped steel poles or Constitution and for violation of Sec. 27 of the Local
towers in connection with its 230 Kilovolt Sucat-Araneta- Government Code for Napocors failure to conduct prior
Balintawak Power Transmission Project. Said transmission consultation with them.
line passes through the perimeter of Fort Bonifacio and Whether is a violation of petitioners constitutionally
Dasmarias Village proximate to where petitioners homes protected right to health and whether Napocor had indeed
are (Forbes Park). violated the Local Government Code provision on prior
Alarmed by the sight of the towering steel towers, petitioners consultation with the affected communities are veritable
researched and found out through internet sources that questions of law that invested the trial court with jurisdiction
exposure to electromagnetic fields could cause diseases to issue a TRO and subsequently, a preliminary injunction.
ranging from cancer to leukemia. Thus, petitioners had As such, these questions of law divest the case from the
various meetings with Napocor about the infrastructure protective mantle of Presidential Decree No. 1818.
project but such meetings remained futile because both Moreover, the issuance by the trial court of a preliminary
parties never reached an agreement. injunction finds legal support in Section 3 of Rule 58 of the
Hence, on 9 March 2000, petitioners filed a complaint for Rules of Court. The rule on preliminary injunction merely
damages with prayer for the issuance of TRO and/or requires that unless restrained, the act complained of will
preliminary injunction against Napocor. The complaint was probably violate his rights and tend to render the judgment
granted by the court. ineffectual. Here, there is adequate evidence on record to
Napocor filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for TRO justify the conclusion that the project of Napocor probably
and Preliminary Injunction with the CA, on the ground that imperils the health and safety of the petitioners so as to
Sec. 1 of PD 1818 provides that no court of the Philippines justify the issuance by the trial court of a writ of preliminary
shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order, injunction.
preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction
in any case, dispute, or controversy involving an It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court, in a long
infrastructure project line of cases, that before a party is allowed to seek the
In the interregnum, by order dated 3 April 2000, the trial intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should
court ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction have availed of all the means of administrative processes
against Napocor. The trial court articulated that an afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative
injunction was necessary to stay Napocors activation of its machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative
power lines due to the possible health risks posed to the officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that
petitioners. The trial court was of the view that Presidential comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be
Decree No. 1818 and jurisprudence proscribing injunctions exhausted first before the courts judicial power can be sought.
against infrastructure projects do not find application in the The premature invocation of a courts intervention is fatal to
case at bar because of the health risks involved. ones cause of action as aptly explained by the Supreme Court
Napocor amended its petition filed before the CA to to in the case of University of the Philippines v. Catungal,
include the prayer for the nullification and injunction of the Jr., et al., (G.R. No. 121863, May 5, 1997), to wit:
Order dated 3 April 2000 of the trial court.
On 3 May 2000, the CA reversed the trial courts order, The underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of
ruling that the proscription on injunctions against administrative remedies rests on the presumption that the
infrastructure projects of the government is clearly administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass
mandated by the Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1818. upon the matter, will decide the same correctly. There are both
legal and practical reasons for the principle. The administrative
Issue process is intended to provide less expensive and more speedy
Whether or not the trial court may issue a temporary solutions to disputes. Where the enabling statute indicates a
restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin the procedure for administrative review and provides a system of
construction and operation of the 29 decagon-shaped steel administrative appeal or reconsideration, the courts for
poles or towers by the NAPOCOR, notwithstanding reasons of law, comity, and convenience will not entertain a
Presidential Decree No. 1818 case unless the available administrative remedies have been
Held resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given an
Yes, petition is granted. opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the
Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits courts from issuing administrative forum.
injunctions against government infrastructure projects.
Presidential Decree No. 1818 was held to prohibit courts
In Levi Strauss & Co. v. Clinton Apparelle, Inc., we
from issuing an injunction against any infrastructure project
in order not to disrupt or hamper the pursuit of essential held:
government projects or frustrate the economic development While the matter of the issuance of a writ of preliminary
effort of the nation. injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
However, although Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits court, this discretion must be exercised based upon the
any court from issuing injunctions in cases involving grounds and in the manner provided by law. The exercise of
infrastructure projects, the prohibition extends only to the discretion by the trial court in injunctive matters is generally
issuance of injunctions or restraining orders against not interfered with save in cases of manifest abuse. And to
administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the determine whether there was grave abuse of discretion, a
exercise of discretion in technical cases. On issues clearly scrutiny must be made of the bases, if any, considered by the
outside this dimension and involving questions of law, this trial court in granting injunctive relief. Be it stressed that
Court declared that courts could not be prevented from injunction is the strong arm of equity which must be issued
exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative with great caution and deliberation, and only in cases of great
acts. injury where there is no commensurate remedy in damages

Hernandez Vs NPC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hernandez Vs NPC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hernandez Vs NPC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hernandez vs NPC In the case at bar, petitioners sought the issuance of a

Facts preliminary injunction on the ground that the Napocor

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.