Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
38 -2014
J u d g e s s h o u l d b e a r i n m i n d t h a t i n G a r c i a v.
Burgos (291 SCRA 546, 571-572 [1998]), this Court
explicitly stated:
S e c t i o n 1 o f P. D . 1 8 1 8 d i s t i n c t l y p r o v i d e s t h a t
"ln]o court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to
i s s u e a n y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r, p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n , o r
preliminary mandatory injunction in any case, dispute,
or controversy involving an infrastructure project x x x
of the government, x x x to prohibit amy person or
p e r s o n s , e n t i t y o r g o v e r n m e n t o f fi c i a l f r o m p r o c e e d i n g
with or continuing the execution or implementation of
any such project, x x x or pursuing any lawful activity
necessary for such execution, implementation or
operation." At the risk of being repetitious, we stress
that the foregoing statutory provision expressly
deprives courts of jurisdiction to issue injunction writs
against the implementation or execution of an
infrastructure project.
F i n a l l y, j u d g e s s h o u l d n e v e r f o r g e t w h a t t h e C o u r t
c a t e g o r i c a l l y d e c l a r e d i n M i n o s v. N a t i v i d a d ( 2 1 3 S C R A
7 3 4 , 7 4 2 [ i 9 9 2 ] ) t h a t " [ b ] y e x p r e s s p r o v i s i o n o f l a w,
amply supported by well-settled jurisprudence, the
Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over
seizure and forfeiture proceedings, and regular courts
c a n n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t h h i s e x e r c i s e t h e r e o f o r s t i fl e o r p u t
it to naught. (Emphasis supplied)
S u b s e q u e n t l y, t h e s a m e p r o s c r i p t i o n o n t h e i s s u a n c e o f T R O s
and writs of preliminary injunction was further reiterated in
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C i r c u l a r N o . 11 - 2 0 0 0 d a t e d N o v e m b e r 1 3 ,
2000, in view of the enactment of Republic Act No. 8975, also
known as "An Act to Ensure the Expeditious Implementation and
Completion of Government Infrastructure Projects by Prohibiting
L o w e r C o u r t s f r o m I s s u i n g Te m p o r a r y R e s t r a i n i n g O r d e r s ,
Preliminary Injunctions or Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions,
Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof, and for Other
Purposes." Section 3 of the Act quoted therein reads as follows:
S E C . 3 . P r o h i b i t i o n o n t h e I s s u a n c e o f Te m p o r a r y
Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injur~ctions and
Preliminary Mandatory Injurmtfons. - No Court, except the
Supreme Court, shall issue any temporary restraining
o r d e r, p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n o r p r e l i m i n a r y m a n d a t o r y
injunction against the government, or any of its
s u b d i v i s i o n s , o f fi c i a l s o r a n y p e r s o n o r e n t i t y , w h e t h e r
public or private, acting under the government's
direction, to restrain, prohibit or compel the following
acts:
(a} A c q u i s i t i o n , c l e a r a n c e a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e
right-of-way and/or site or location of any
national government project;
{b) B i d d i n g o r a w a r d i n g o f c o n t r a c t / p r o j e c t o f t h e
n a t i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t a s d e fi n e d u n d e r S e c t i o n
2 hereof;
(c) C o m m e n c e m e n t , p r o s e c u t i o n , e x e c u t i o n , i m p l e -
mentation, operation of any such contract or
project;
(d) T e r m i n a t i o n o r r e s c i s s i o n o f a n y s u c h
contact/project; and
The undertaking or authorization of any other
lawful activity necessary for such
contract/project.
I f a f t e r d u e h e a r i n g t h e c o u r t fi n d s t h a t t h e a w a r d
o f t h e c o n t r a c t i s n u l l a n d v o i d , t h e c o u r t m a y, i f
appropriate under the circumstances, award the
c o n t r a c t t o t h e q u a l i fi e d a n d w i n n i n g b i d d e r o r o r d e r a
rebidding of the same, without prejudice to any liability
that the guilty party may incur under existing laws.
H o w e v e r, d u e t o t h e n e g a t i v e r e p o r t s t h a t r e a c h e d t h e C o u r t
not only on the issuance of TROs or writs of preliminary injunction
in cases involving government projects but also on the complaints
about delays in the disposition of such cases after a TRO is
converted into a writ of preliminary injunction, the Court issued
Administrative Circular No. 62-2002 dated November 20,
2002. It reminded all trial court judges to strictly comply with
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C i r c u l a r N o s . 7 - 9 9 a n d 11 - 2 0 0 0 , a n d d i r e c t e d t h e m
to submit the reports on the status of TROs or writs of preliminary
injunction issued in various cases.
L a s t l y , t h e C o u r t t h r o u g h t h e O f fi c e o f t h e C o u r t
Administrator issued OCA Circular No. 79-2003 dated June 12,
2003. The trial court judges are once again cautioned concerning
the improvident or irregular issuance of TROs or the grant of writs
of preliminary injunction. They are reminded to be aware of the
cases where the issuance of temporary restraJ2aing order or the
g r a n t o f p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n i s p r o p e r, a s w e l l a s t h e c a s e s
where they are not including cases concerning government
infrastructure projects.
In view of all the foregoing, all concerned are hereby
E X H O R T E D t o C O N T I N U O U S LY O B S E RV E a n d I M P L E M E N T t h e
abovementioned administrative issuances of the Court to ensure
that all cases involving government infrastructure projects can be
resolved in a speedy and timely manner.
Mazehl2,2014
A S P. M A R Q U E Z
Administrator