ILOILO GRAIN COMPLEX CORPORATION, PETITIONER or execution of specified government projects.

Thus, the ambit

VS. HON. MA. THERESA N. ENRIQUEZ-GASPAR, IN HER of the prohibition covers only temporary or preliminary
CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC-ILOILO CITY, restraining orders or writs but NOT decisions on the merits
BRANCH 33, AND NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF granting permanent injunctions. The said statutes however do
THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS not explicitly proscribe the issuance of a permanent injunction
April 2023 granted by a court of law arising from an adjudication of a case
on the merits.
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
Issues In fine, the prohibition circumscribed under Section 3 of RA
1 Did the filing of the Petition 8975 applies to the issuance by lower courts of temporary or
) for Certiorari and Prohibition preliminary injunctive writs alone, but does not preclude them
directly with the Court violate the from issuing permanent injunction arising from an adjudication
doctrine of hierarchy of courts? of the case on the merits.
2 Did the trial court commit grave
) abuse of discretion when it issued The subject of the present Petition and Application for TRO or
the assailed writ of possession? Writ of Preliminary Injunction does not pertain to the merits of
The case involves a pure legal the main case for expropriation, which is yet to be heard on the
question excepted from the merits by the trial court. What IGCC seeks to enjoin is only the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts implementation of the writ of possession and related
issuances in order to protect itself from
The doctrine of hierarchy of courts dictates that litigants must, being peremptorily ousted from its own property without due
as a rule, file their petitions before the lower-ranked court since process of law. Verily, IGCC correctly invoked the application
a direct recourse to the Court is generally improper. It guides of Section 3 of RA 8975 to justify its direct recourse to the
the litigants as to the proper venue of appeals or the Court.
appropriate forum for issuance of the extraordinary writs
of CPM-QW-HC over which the Court, the CA, and the RTC In Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, the Court acknowledged
have concurrent original jurisdiction. that it has full discretionary power to take cognizance of and
assume jurisdiction over SCA filed directly with it for
It is founded principally on two reasons: first, the SC is a court exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature
of last resort and must remain to be so in order for it to of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the petition.
satisfactorily perform its constitutional functions, allowing it to
devote its time and attention to matters within its exclusive We further analyzed the commonality of the exceptions to the
jurisdiction and to prevent the overcrowding of its docket; doctrine in Gios-Samar v. Department of Transportation and
[54]
and second, the SC is not a trier of facts. It is not equipped Communication, where we finally clarified that the
– either by structure or rule – to receive and evaluate evidence determinative factor to be considered whether to allow direct
in the first instance as these are the primary functions of lower recourse to this Court is the nature of the question at hand,
courts or regulatory agencies. Disregard of the hierarchy of and not the mere invocation of compelling reasons, thus:
courts merits the immediate dismissal of the action.
A careful examination of the jurisprudential bases of the
Iloilo Grain Complex Corporation (IGCC), however, justifies foregoing exceptions would reveal a common
direct resort to the Court since its prayer for TRO or writ of denominator – the issues for resolution of the Court are
preliminary injunction against the implementation of the writ of purely legal.
possession allegedly falls within the exclusive authority of the
Court by virtue of Section 3 of RA 8975, viz.: We take this opportunity to clarify that the presence of one or
more of the so-called "special and important reasons" is not
Section 3. Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary the decisive factor considered by the Court in deciding whether
Restraining Orders, Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions. – No to permit the invocation, at the first instance, of its original J.
court, except the SC, shall issue any TRO, preliminary over the issuance of extraordinary writs.
injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against the
government, or any of its subdivisions, officials or any person Here, IGCC raises a pure
or entity, whether public or private acting under the legal question: Did the trial court
government direction, to restrain, prohibit or compel the commit GAD amounting to LEJ when
following acts: it issued a writ of possession, albeit
(a) Acquisition, clearance and development of the right-of- the very authority of NGCP to
way and/or site or location of any national government expropriate the subject property has
project; been incipiently assailed at the
(b) Bidding or awarding of contract/project of the national earliest opportunity? In other words,
government as defined under Section 2 hereof; is the issuance of a writ of
(c) Commencement prosecution, execution, implementation, possession in expropriation cases
operation of any such contract or project; ministerial upon the trial court where
(d) Termination or rescission of any such contract/project; and the authority of petitioner to
expropriate is in question?
(e) The undertaking or authorization of any other lawful activity
necessary for such contract/project. . .
The trial court committed GAD
when it issued the writ of
It posits that since the act sought to be enjoined is the taking of
possession, albeit NGCP's
its property for the acquisition, clearance, and development of
authority to expropriate the
a right-of-way for the Ingore Cable Terminal Station and the subject property is in question
Panay-Guimaras 138kV Transmission Line Project, a national
government infrastructure, both its principal action The right of persons to life, liberty, or property is
for Certiorari and Prohibition along with its prayer for the constitutionally protected. No one can be deprived of the same
issuance of a TRO or Preliminary Injunction may be filed only without due process of law. For this reason, Section 9, Article
with the Court. III of the Constitution limits the inherent power of the State
itself in the taking of private property, viz.:
On this score, We reiterate our pronouncement in Spouses
Soller v. Singson, viz.: Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation.
In the case of Philco Aero, Inc. v. Secretary Tugade, this Court
recognized the remedy of resorting directly before this Court in This is the power of eminent domain. It is defined as the right
cases covered under R.A No. 8975. Section 3 of R.A No. 8975 of the government to take and appropriate private property for
was explicit in excluding other courts in the issuance of public use, whenever the public exigency requires it, which can
injunctive writs. However, in the case of Bases Conversion and be done only on condition of providing reasonable
Development Authority v. Uy, this Court clarified that the compensation therefor. It is inseparable from sovereignty and
prohibition applies only to TRO and preliminary injunction, viz.: inherent in the State. It is, however, primarily lodged with
Congress as the legislative branch of the government.
A perusal of these aforequoted provisions readily reveals that Congress, however, may delegate the exercise of the power of
all courts, except this Court, are proscribed from issuing TROs eminent domain to local government units, other public entities,
and writs of preliminary injunction against the implementation and public utility corporations, subject only to Constitutional
limitations.
1
 complaint, and (b) the required provisional deposit. The
In the hands of government agencies, local governments, sufficiency in form and substance of the complaint for
public utilities, and other persons and entities, the right to expropriation can be determined by the mere examination of
expropriate is not inherent and is only a delegated power. On the allegations in the complaint.
this score, it is undisputed that the legislature via RA 9511 We focus on the first requisite, that is, the complaint must be
granted NGCP not only the franchise to operate, manage, sufficient both in form and substance.
maintain, and develop the country's state-owned power grid
and to engage in electricity transmission service but also the To be deemed sufficient in substance, a complaint for
right to eminent domain, viz.: XXX expropriation must clearly set forth the ff requisites for the valid
exercise of eminent domain: (1) the property taken must be
As clearly indicated, NGCP's right to ED, being a mere private property; (2) there must be genuine necessity to take
delegated power, is subject to several restrictions: first, it must the private property; (3) the taking must be for public use; (4)
conform to limitations prescribed by law; and second, it must there must be payment of just compensation; and (5) the
be exercised in accordance with the proper procedure for taking must comply with due process. Indubitably, for entities
expropriation.The scope of its delegated power is thus exercising a mere delegated power of expropriation, they must
necessarily narrower than that of the delegating authority. likewise demonstrate that they do have the authority to
The trial court committed GAD amounting to LEJ when it exercise such power of expropriation.
issued the writ of possession without first determining whether
NGCP has in fact complied with the requirements of the law for On this score, we turn to Section 9(d) of the EPIRA which
a valid exercise of its delegated power to expropriate, among requires ERC's prior approval of any plan to expand or improve
them, the existence of a genuine necessity for the taking of the TransCo's facilities now being operated and maintained by
subject property, compliance with the required ERC approval NGCP, thus:
for the project, and compliance with the requirement that the
expropriation and the manner by which it is sought to be SECTION 9. Functions and Responsibilities. – Upon the
implemented is least burdensome to the landowner. effectivity of this Act, the TRANSCO shall have the ff functions
and responsibilities: x x x
Under Rule 67 of the RC, the exercise of the power of ED has
two stages: first, the determination of the authority of the (d) Improve and expand its transmission facilities, consistent
plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the with the Grid Code and the Transmission Development Plan
propriety of its exercise in the context of the surrounding facts; (TOP) to be promulgated pursuant to this Act, to adequately
and second, the taking of the land by the State or its agency serve generation companies, distribution utilities and suppliers
subject to payment of just compensation. The first stage ends, requiring transmission service and/or ancillary services through
if not in a dismissal of the action, with an order of the transmission system: Provided, That TRANSCO shall
condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to submit any plan for expansion or improvement of its
take the property sought to be condemned, for public use.
facilities for approval by the ERC. . .
The State or its agents may not proceed to the second part In fine, before NGCP may take any concrete action for
without complying with the first. As stated, genuine necessity is expansion, e.g., expropriating private land for such project, it
a condition sine qua non to the taking of one's private property. must first secure prior approval from the ERC. Lacking this pre-
requisite, it cannot be said that a genuine necessity exists for
The necessity for conferring the authority upon a municipal the taking of petitioner's land simply because there is yet no
corporation to exercise the right of ED is admittedly within the approved project for the use of such land.
power of the legislature. But whether or not the municipal
corporation or entity is exercising the right in a particular case In any case, NGCP's failure to allege in its complaint that it had
under the conditions imposed by the general authority, is a secured the requisite ERC approval and that the expropriation
question which the courts have the right to inquire into. sought, as well as its choice of the portion to be expropriated is
the least burdensome to the landowner renders the complaint
Here, the trial court never heard the issue of necessity insufficient in substance. To reiterate, for a complaint for
incipiently raised by IGCC in relation to the alleged absence of expropriation to be sufficient in substance, there is a need to,
the required ERC clearance, lack of a genuine negotiation in at the minimum, allege that the expropriating agency
good faith on the part of NGCP, and lack of any showing that possesses the authority to exercise the power of eminent
the choice of the subject property is the least burdensome to domain,[92] which includes allegations that all restrictions
the landowner. provided by the delegating law have been complied with. In
this case, Section 4 of RA 9511 expressly required NGCP to
We now reckon with Section 2, Rule 67 of the RC, viz.: exercise its right of eminent domain "insofar as it may be
Section 2. Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value with reasonably necessary" and to acquire private property as is
authorized government depositary. – Upon the filing of the "actually necessary for the realization of the purposes for which
complaint or at any time thereafter and after due notice to the the franchise is granted." This, NGCP failed to allege, as well.
defendant, the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter
upon the possession of the real property involved if he [or she] Notably, these matters essentially hinge on the issue of
deposits with the authorized government depositary an amount necessity vis-à-vis the expropriator's compliance with the
equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes statutory requirements for a valid exercise of the power of ED.
of taxation to be held by such bank subject to the orders of the Consequently, the insufficiency of the complaint as to
court. Such deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof substance precludes the trial court from proceeding to the
the court authorizes the deposit of a certificate of deposit of a second stage, that is, the taking of the property which
government bank of the Republic of the Philippines payable on commences with the issuance of the writ of possession. In light
demand to the authorized government depositary. of these attendant circumstances, therefore, the trial court
cannot rightly claim to have been vested with the ministerial
If personal property is involved, its value shall be provisionally duty to order its issuance.
ascertained and the amount to be deposited shall be promptly
fixed by the court. It is dutybound, however, to revert to the first stage of the
expropriation proceedings and hear the parties on the authority
After such deposit is made the court shall order the sheriff or of NGCP to expropriate the subject property. Specifically, it
other proper court officer to forthwith place the plaintiff in must determine at first instance whether NGCP is armed with
possession of the property involved and promptly submit a the required ERC approval, whether it initiated and pursued an
report thereof to the court with service of copies to the parties. honest to goodness negotiation with IGCC before filing the
OCA Circular No. 113-2019, as reiterated by OCA Circular No. case for expropriation. and whether its chosen line path is
68-2022 cites the case of Cordova as basis for directing lower reasonably necessary for the public purpose intended to be
courts to immediately issue a writ of possession in served and proved to be the least burdensome to the
expropriation cases once the ff requisites are satisfied: (1) landowner. It is only after the trial court shall have determined
sufficiency of the complaint in form and substance; and (2) the all these questions in the affirmative may it advance to the
required provisional deposit, viz.: second stage of taking, starting off with the issuance of the writ
of possession so long as the twin requisites therefor are
Pathfinder and Topanga contend that the trial court issued an present; otherwise, the complaint should be dismissed.
Order of Condemnation of the properties without previously
conducting a proper hearing for the reception of evidence of ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with
the parties. However, no hearing is actually required for the Very Urgent Application for Temporary Restraining Order
issuance of a writ of possession, which demands only two (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. The
requirements: (a) the sufficiency in form and substance of the
2
Orders dated December 12, 2022 and January 20, 2023 of the
RTC are NULLIFIED.

Respondent Hon. Enriquez-Gaspar, in her capacity as

Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 33, Iloilo City, and
respondent National Grid Corporation of the Philippines, and
all other persons acting on their behalf, are PERMANENTLY
PROHIBITED from executing and/or implementing the writ of
possession dated December 12, 2022 and other orders related
thereto.

Further, respondent Presiding Judge is ORDERED to

determine, upon due notice and hearing, the authority of the
National Grid Corporation of the Philippines to expropriate the
subject property vis-à-vis the specific matters heretofore
stated.