Hernandez v. National Power Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, residents of Dasmariñas Village, sought to prevent respondent National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) from energizing its 230 Kilovolt Sucat-Araneta-Balintawak Power Transmission Project, which involved the construction of 53.4-meter high steel towers near their homes. Petitioners raised concerns about potential health risks from electromagnetic radiation exposure, citing various studies. They engaged in negotiations with NAPOCOR, which offered several options for addressing the concerns, but an impasse was reached. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a Complaint for Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially issued a temporary restraining order and subsequently a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining NAPOCOR from energizing the power lines, citing potential health risks and violations of consultation requirements. NAPOCOR filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to Presidential Decree No. 1818. The CA reversed the RTC's orders, holding that PD 1818 prohibited the issuance of injunctions in such cases. Petitioners sought a review of the CA's decision. The Petition: The Supreme Court was asked to resolve whether the trial court could issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin the construction and operation of the NAPOCOR project, notwithstanding Presidential Decree No. 1818, given the alleged health risks and lack of prior consultation.
Issue(s)
Whether Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits courts from issuing a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin the construction and operation of a government infrastructure project when the issues involve questions of law, specifically the constitutional right to health and statutory consultation requirements. Whether the trial court erred in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction against the National Power Corporation's power transmission project.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the order of the Regional Trial Court reinstating the writ of preliminary injunction is upheld. The National Power Corporation is enjoined from energizing and transmitting high voltage electric current through its cables pending final adjudication of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits courts from issuing injunctions in cases involving questions of law: The Court held that Presidential Decree No. 1818, while prohibiting injunctions in cases involving government infrastructure projects, is not absolute. The prohibition extends only to administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases. However, on issues clearly outside this dimension and involving questions of law, courts are not prevented from exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts. In this case, the petitioners raised questions of law concerning their constitutional right to health under Article II, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution and the alleged violation of Section 27 of the Local Government Code regarding prior consultation with affected communities. These questions of law vested the trial court with jurisdiction to issue the TRO and preliminary injunction, thereby divesting the case from the protective mantle of Presidential Decree No. 1818. The Court emphasized that the decree was not meant to be a blanket prohibition that would disregard fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. On the issue of whether the trial court erred in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction: The Court found that the trial court did not err in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction. The petitioners presented evidence, including studies linking electromagnetic radiation exposure to illnesses like cancer and leukemia, and NAPOCOR's own brochure indicating safety distances for high-voltage power lines. Furthermore, a member of Congress had denounced the project for ignoring safety and consultation requirements. NAPOCOR's own actions, such as proposing relocation options and engaging in negotiations, suggested that the health concerns were not imaginary. The Court also took judicial notice of the area's proximity to earthquake faults and the general risks associated with natural calamities. The Local Government Code mandates consultation with affected communities, a requirement NAPOCOR appeared to have bypassed. Given these factors, the trial court had sufficient basis to issue the injunction to preserve the status quo and protect the petitioners' substantive rights pending final determination of the case. The Court reiterated that a preliminary injunction requires only a probability of violation of rights, not absolute certainty, and serves as a preservative remedy to ensure the protection of a party's substantive rights or interests pending final judgment.
Main Doctrine
Presidential Decree No. 1818, which prohibits courts from issuing injunctions in cases involving government infrastructure projects, does not apply to issues involving questions of law, such as violations of the constitutional right to health and statutory requirements for prior consultation with affected communities. In such cases, courts retain jurisdiction to issue restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to prevent irreparable injury.