Hernandez v. National Power Corporation
Hernandez et al. v. National Power Corporation, G.R. No. 145328, March 23, 2006
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- Civil Law
- NAPOCOR
- Presidential Decree No. 1818
- infrastructure projects
- temporary restraining order
- preliminary injunction
- Rule 58
- right to health
- electromagnetic fields
- local government prior consultation
- status quo
- probability of violation of rights
- judicial power over administrative acts
- jurisdiction
I. Facts of the Case
Petitioners, residents of Dasmariñas Village, sought to enjoin NAPOCOR from energizing and transmitting high voltage through decagon-shaped steel towers erected as part of a 230-kilovolt power transmission project, citing alleged health risks from electromagnetic radiation and claiming lack of proper consultation under the Local Government Code. The Regional Trial Court issued a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction, but the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that Presidential Decree No. 1818 bars injunctions in cases involving infrastructure projects.
1996
NAPOCOR began constructing 29 decagon-shaped steel poles/towers (53.4 meters high) for overhead high tension cables for its 230-kilovolt Sucat–Araneta–Balintawak Power Transmission Project, passing through Dasmariñas Village near Tamarind Road where petitioners lived.
Concerned about alleged adverse health effects linked to electromagnetic fields, petitioners raised their concerns with NAPOCOR through meetings after obtaining and discussing published articles and studies.
May 10, 1999
Representative Francis Joseph G. Escudero delivered a Privilege Speech criticizing NAPOCOR’s handling of safety and consultation requirements for the project.
November 8, 1999
NAPOCOR President Federico Puno wrote that NAPOCOR was still preparing a “win-win” solution to address petitioners’ concerns and those of Forbes Park residents.
August 10, 1999
NAPOCOR President wrote Congressman Arnulfo P. Fuentebella that NAPOCOR discussed the matter with Dasmariñas and Forbes residents and proposed four options, including transferring the line to Lawton Avenue, maintaining a 12-meter distance, constructing an underground line, or rerouting along C-5 and South Luzon Expressway.
March 9, 2000
Petitioners filed a Complaint for Damages with Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction against NAPOCOR, alleging hazardous health effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation and praying, among others, for damages and relocation of the transmission lines.
March 13, 2000
Judge Francisco B. Ibay issued an order in Civil Case No. 00-352 granting a temporary restraining order temporarily restraining NAPOCOR from energizing and transmitting high voltage electric current through the project for forty-eight (48) hours beginning 4 o’clock in the afternoon.
March 15, 2000
The trial court ordered the extension of the temporary restraining order for eighteen (18) more days.
April 3, 2000
The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction against NAPOCOR to stay activation of the power lines due to possible health risks, conditioned on the posting of a bond of ₱5,000,000.00.
NAPOCOR filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction with the Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction and invoking Presidential Decree No. 1818.
May 3, 2000
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s orders granting the temporary restraining order and the preliminary injunction, holding that Presidential Decree No. 1818 clearly mandates the proscription on injunctions against infrastructure projects.
September 27, 2000
The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
March 23, 2006
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals decision and resolution, and reinstated the Regional Trial Court’s preliminary injunction order in Civil Case No. 00-352.
II. Issues
Whether or not the trial court may issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin the construction and operation of NAPOCOR’s 29 decagon-shaped steel poles or towers notwithstanding Presidential Decree No. 1818.
Whether there was a violation of petitioners’ constitutionally protected right to health and whether NAPOCOR violated the Local Government Code provision on prior consultation with affected communities, as questions of law that could invest the trial court with jurisdiction to issue a TRO and subsequently a preliminary injunction.
III. Ruling
Whether or not the trial court may issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin the construction and operation of NAPOCOR’s 29 decagon-shaped steel poles or towers notwithstanding Presidential Decree No. 1818.
Presidential Decree No. 1818 was not intended as an absolute blanket prohibition against all injunctions in infrastructure-related cases; the trial court could issue provisional relief where the controversy involves questions of law and administrative acts clearly outside the decree’s covered dimension.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court explained that Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits injunctions only in the dimension it covers—i.e., injunctions against administrative acts in technical cases where facts are involved or where discretion in technical controversies exists.
- The Court clarified that the decree is not meant to disregard fundamental rights; courts may still restrain or prohibit administrative acts when the dispute is clearly outside the decree’s intended coverage.
- On the facts, petitioners anchored the request for injunctive relief on alleged health risks and possible violations of legal duties on consultation, framing the matter as questions of law for the court’s resolution.
- Because the relief sought was meant to preserve the status quo pending determination, it fit the purpose of provisional remedies under Rule 58, Section 3.
- Thus, the Court held that the CA erred in treating the decree as an all-encompassing bar even when constitutional and statutory issues were raised.
“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 or restraining orders against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases.”
Rule applied
Presidential Decree No. 1818, as interpreted in relation to Rule 58, Section 3 of the Rules of Court
Whether there was a violation of petitioners’ constitutionally protected right to health and whether NAPOCOR violated the Local Government Code provision on prior consultation with affected communities, as questions of law that could invest the trial court with jurisdiction to issue a TRO and subsequently a preliminary injunction.
The allegations involving petitioners’ constitutionally protected right to health and the alleged failure to comply with prior-consultation requirements under the Local Government Code were veritable questions of law that could support the trial court’s authority to issue a TRO and subsequently a preliminary injunction.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court treated the claimed infringement of the constitutionally protected right to health and the alleged non-compliance with prior consultation requirements as questions of law rather than purely technical fact disputes.
- These legal issues brought the controversy outside the protective mantle of Presidential Decree No. 1818, allowing the trial court to exercise its power to issue provisional relief.
- Rule 58, Section 3 authorizes preliminary injunction when there is a probability that the right of the applicant is violated and the injunction is necessary to preserve the status quo pending final determination.
- The trial court found that staying activation was necessary because of possible health risks, and the condition of posting a bond ensured protection for the enjoined party pending final resolution.
- Accordingly, the Court concluded that the trial court’s injunctive orders were jurisdictionally proper given the legal nature of the issues raised.
“From the foregoing, whether there is a violation of petitioners' constitutionally protected right to health and whether respondent NAPOCOR had indeed violated the Local Government Code provision on prior consultation with the affected communities are veritable questions of law that invested the trial court with jurisdiction to issue a TRO and subsequently, a preliminary injunction.”
Rule applied
Rule 58, Section 3 of the Rules of Court; Local Government Code, Section 27; Presidential Decree No. 1818 (interpretation limiting its scope); constitutional right to health
Doctrines
Presidential Decree No. 1818 does not impose an absolute blanket prohibition on all injunctions involving infrastructure projects; the ban applies only to injunctions or restraining orders against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases.
Courts may still issue TROs or preliminary injunctions where the controversy, though involving an infrastructure project, turns on veritable questions of law such as alleged violations of constitutionally protected rights and statutory duties (e.g., prior consultation), and where provisional relief is necessary to preserve the status quo pending final determination under Rule 58, Section 3.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE , the petition is granted. The decision dated 3 May 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57849 and the Resolution dated 27 September 2000 are reversed and set aside. The RTC Order dated 3 April 2000 in Civil Case No. 00-352 is reinstated.
Notes
This digest synthesizes the procedural timeline and the Supreme Court’s doctrinal interpretation of Presidential Decree No. 1818 as limited in scope, allowing injunctive relief when legal questions outside the decree’s covered dimension are raised.