Eduardo F. Hernandez v. National Power Corporation

EDUARDO F. HERNANDEZ v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, GR NO.
145328,
2006-03-23
Facts:
NAPOCOR began the construction of 29 decagon-shaped steel poles or towers with a height of
53.4 meters to support overhead high tension cables in connection with its 230 Kilovolt
Sucat-Araneta-Balintawak Power Transmission Project. Said transmission line passes...
through the Sergio Osmeña, Sr. Highway (South Superhighway), the perimeter of Fort
Bonifacio, and Dasmariñas Village proximate to Tamarind Road, where petitioners' homes are.
Said project later proved to be petitioners' bane of existence.
Alarmed by the sight of the towering steel towers, petitioners scoured the internet on the
possible adverse effects that such a structure could cause to their health and well-being.
Petitioners got hold of published articles and studies linking the incidence of a fecund of...
illnesses to exposure to electromagnetic fields. These illnesses range from cancer to leukemia.
Petitioners left no stones unturned to address their malady. They aired this growing concern to
the NAPOCOR, which conducted a series of meetings with them.
NAPOCOR received flak from Representative Francis Joseph G. Escudero, who in his
Privilege Speech dated 10 May 1999, denounced the cavalier manner with which Napocor
ignored safety and consultation requirements in the questioned project.
Petitioners brought their woes to the attention of Rep. Arnulfo Fuentebella, Chairman of the
House Committee on Energy, wherein NAPOCOR was asked to shed light on the petitioners'
problem. In a letter dated 8 November 1999, Napocor President Federico Puno stated that
NAPOCOR was still in the process of coming up with a "win-win" solution to the concerns of
the Dasmariñas Village and Forbes Park residents.
Negotiations between petitioners and the NAPOCOR reached an impass', with petitioners
vying for the relocation of the transmission lines to Fort Bonifacio on one hand, and the
NAPOCOR insisting on a 12-meter easement widening, on the other.[6]
Thus, petitioners, on 9 March 2000 filed a Complaint[7] for Damages with Prayer for the
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction against
NAPOCOR. Harping on the hazardous effects of exposure to electromagnetic... radiation to
the health and safety to themselves and their families, petitioners, through the instant case,
sought what they had failed to achieve through amicable means with NAPOCOR and prayed,
inter alia, for damages and the relocation of the transmission lines to
Lawton Avenue, Fort Bonifacio.
NAPOCOR filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction with the Court of Appeals assailing the above order by the trial court.
the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order,
Issues:
whether or not the trial court may issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction to enjoin the construction and operation of the 29 decagon-shaped steel poles or
towers by the NAPOCOR,... notwithstanding Presidential Decree No. 1818.
Ruling:
We find the petition to be imbued with merit.
Presidential Decree No. 1818 was issued on 16 January 1981, prohibiting judges from issuing
restraining orders against government infrastructure projects. In part, the decree says, "No court
in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order, preliminary... injunction
or preliminary order, preliminary mandatory injunction in any case, dispute or controversy
involving an infrastructure project." Realizing the importance of this decree, this Tribunal had
issued different circulars to implement this particular law.
Presidential Decree No. 1818[16] prohibits courts from issuing injunctions against government
infrastructure projects. In Garcia v. Burgos,[17] Presidential Decree No. 1818 was held to
prohibit courts from issuing an... injunction against any infrastructure project in order not to
disrupt or hamper the pursuit of essential government projects or frustrate the economic
development effort of the nation.
While its sole provision would appear to encompass all cases involving the implementation of
projects and contracts on infrastructure, natural resource development and public utilities, this
rule, however, is not absolute as there are actually instances when Presidential Decree
No. 1818 should not find application. In a spate of cases, this Court declared that 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. On issues clearly outside this dimension and involving questions
of law, this Court declared that courts could not be prevented from... exercising their power to
restrain or prohibit administrative acts.[18]
Moreover, the issuance by the trial court of a preliminary injunction finds legal support in
Section 3 of Rule 58 of the Rules... pport in Section 3 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court
The rule on preliminary injunction merely requires that unless restrained, the act complained of
will probably violate his rights and tend to render the judgment ineffectual.

Eduardo F. Hernandez v. National Power Corporation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eduardo F. Hernandez v. National Power Corporation

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

Eduardo F. Hernandez v. National Power Corporation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDUARDO F. HERNANDEZ v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, GR NO.

You might also like