View full case

EDUARDO F. HERNANDEZ v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION

FACTS:

Residents of Dasmariñas Village filed a complaint against the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) concerning the installation of high voltage cables near their homes. They sought a writ of preliminary injunction to halt the project due to health concerns. The trial court granted the injunction, reasoning that the health risks justified its issuance, as it believed Presidential Decree No. 1818, which prohibits injunctions against government infrastructure projects, did not apply in this case.

NAPOCOR appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals and later amended their petition to include a request for the nullification of the subsequent order issued by the trial court. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order, citing Presidential Decree No. 1818 as the basis for the prohibition on injunctions against government projects.

The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, but their motion was denied. Consequently, they elevated the case to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for review.

The central issue for resolution is whether the trial court had the authority to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against NAPOCOR's construction and operation of the steel poles, notwithstanding the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1818.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits courts from issuing injunctions against government infrastructure projects.

  2. Whether the petitioners' constitutionally protected right to health and the Local Government Code provision on prior consultation have been violated.

  3. Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction.

  4. Whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

  5. Whether there is sufficient basis to suggest that the health concerns of the petitioners are valid.

  6. Whether the NAPOCOR project could endanger the lives of the petitioners.

  7. Whether a preliminary injunction is justified to preserve the status quo.

  8. Whether Presidential Decree No. 1818 is a blanket prohibition against the issuance of temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions.

  9. Whether the general welfare is at loggerheads with the preservation of the rule of law.

RULING:

  1. Presidential Decree No. 1818 does not prohibit courts from issuing injunctions against government infrastructure projects in cases involving questions of law.

  2. There are veritable questions of law regarding the violation of the petitioners' constitutionally protected right to health and the Local Government Code provision on prior consultation, which gives the trial court jurisdiction to issue a TRO and preliminary injunction.

  3. The trial court has jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction based on Rule 58, Section 3 of the Rules of Court.

  4. There is sufficient evidence on record to justify the issuance of a preliminary injunction, including studies linking illnesses to exposure to electromagnetic fields, NAPOCOR's own brochure regarding safe distances for power lines, and correspondence indicating lack of consultation and disregard for safety requirements.

  5. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner and granted the writ of preliminary injunction.

  6. Presidential Decree No. 1818 does not constitute an unbridled prohibition against the issuance of temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions. The purpose of the decree is to prevent the untimely frustration of government infrastructure projects, but it was not intended to disregard the fundamental right to health, safety, and well-being of a community guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land.

  7. The promotion of the general welfare should not be achieved at the expense of the rule of law. While the NAPOCOR project aims towards the common good, the far-reaching irreversible effects to human safety should be the primary concern over presumed economic benefits.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits courts from issuing injunctions against government infrastructure projects, except in cases involving questions of law.

  • Jurisdiction of the trial court to issue a TRO and preliminary injunction is based on questions of law.

  • The rule on preliminary injunction requires that the act complained of will probably violate the rights of the applicant and render the judgment ineffectual.

  • Sufficient evidence is needed to justify the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

  • The court can grant a preliminary injunction if there is a probability that the act complained of violates the rights of the applicant.

  • A preliminary injunction is a preservative remedy to protect a party's substantive rights or interests.

  • The court may issue a mandatory injunction to reestablish a preexisting continuing relation between the parties.

  • Judges are directed to exercise utmost caution, prudence, and judiciousness in the issuance of temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to avoid suspicion of issuance or grant for considerations other than the strict merits of the case.

  • The preservation of the rule of law should not be compromised even for the promotion of the general welfare.

  • The fundamental right to health, safety, and well-being of a community is guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land.

  • Government infrastructure projects should not ignore the fundamental rights of individuals.

  • The promotion of the general welfare should not outweigh the preservation of the rule of law.