519

ULES OF PROCEDURE FOR

CHAPTER XVI - R L CASES
ENVIRONMENTA

od of 72 hours, the court shall

2. Within the same peri
to determine whether the TEPO
conduct a summary hearing may be
ination of the case.
extended until the term
pears that the issuance or
3. If, after_ hearing, it ap
cause irreparable damage to
continuance of the TEPO would the
le the applicant may be fully
party or person enjoined whi
he may suffer, the TEPO
compensated for such damages as may
ed by the party or person
he dissolved upon bond post enjoined .46

e. Lifespan of a TEPO
ive for seven ty-
Section 8 states that the TEPO shall be effect
ring,
two (72) hours but it may be extended, after a summary hea
"until the termination of the case." Under Section 5, Rule 58 of the
Rules of Court, a temporary restraining order (TRO) may be issued ex
parte which is effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from its
issuance. Thereafter, within said period, a summary hearing shall be
conducted to determine whether the TRO shall be extended until the
application for preliminary injunction can he heard, but in no case
shall the total period of its effectivity exceed twenty (20) days.

SEC. 9. Action on motion for dissolution of TEPO. The

grounds for motion to dissolve a TEPO shall be supported by
affidavits of the party or person enjoined which the applicant
may oppose, also by affidavits.

The TEPO may be dissolved if it appears after hearing

that its issuance or continuance would cause irreparable
damage to the party or person enjoined while the applicant
may be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffel-
and subject to the posting of a sufficient bond by the party or
person enjoined.

SEC. 10. Prohibition against temporary restraining order

(TRO) and preliminary injunction. — Except the Supreme
Court, no court can issue a TRO or writ of preliminary
injunction against lawful actions of government agenci th es
thereat enforce environmental laws or prevent violatioof. ns
 a. Prohibition against the issuance of a TRO and
preliminary injunction.

This section is derived from the provisions of PD No. 60541 and

18.42
PD No. 18
PD No. 605 was issued to stop the common practice of courts to
elimina
issue pr ry injunctions and/or preliminary mandatory
in di
injunctions sputes involving or growing out of the issuance,
suspension, revocation, approval or disapproval of any concession,
license, permit, patent or public grant of any kind for the disposition,
exploitation, utilization, exploration and development of the natural
resources of the country. Such practice was found to be undesirable as
it has resulted in the disruption of the smooth functioning of the
administrative machinery having charge of the natural resources of
the country and a contributory deterrent to the development and
exploitation of our natural resources. PD No. 1818 adopted a similar
prohibition against the issuance of such restraining orders or
injunctions in other areas of activity equally critical to the economic
development effort of the nation, in order not to disrupt or hamper the
pursuit of essential government projects.

b. Only' the Supreme Court may issue a TRO, pre-

liminary injunction and preliminary mandatory
injunction against lawful actions of government
agencies
Section 10 is formulated to support the government and its
agencies in their responsibilities and tasks. Hence, no court except
the Supreme Court can issue a TRO or writ of preliminary
injunction -against lawful actions of government agencies that
enforce environmental laws or prevent violations thereof.
blic
Relatedly, in WT Construction, Inc. v. Department of Pu
to the mandate
Works and Highways,43 it was held that pursuant of
authority to
RA No. 8975," only the Supreme Court has the

involving
'Banning the issuance by courts of preliminary injunction in cases
public administrative officials or
concessions licenses and other permits issued by bodies
for the exploitation of natural resources.
ders or preliminary injunction
42Prohibiting courts from issuing restraining or
rces development projects of and
incases involving infrastructure and natural resou Public
utilities operated by the government.
685.
44An4`GR No. 163352, July 31, 2007, 528 SCRA
A
entation and Completion of Gov-
ern to Ensure the Expeditious Implem
ct
ment Infrastructure Projects, etc.
issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction a.nd
preliminary mandatory injunction against the government or any of
its instrumentalities, officials and agencies in cases such as those
filed by bidders or those claiming to have rights through such bidders
involving such contract or project. RA No. 8975 prohibits lower
courts from issuing injunctive orders in connection with the
implementation of government infrastructure projects unless the
case pertains to matters of extreme urgency involving constitutional
issues such that unless a temporary restraining order is issued,
grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise. The prohibition,
however, does not deprive the lower courts of the authority to take
cognizance of the issues raised in the principal action, as long as
such action and the relief sought are within their jurisdiction.

c. But courts could not be prevented from exercising

their power to restrain or prohibit administrative
acts involving questions of law
In Hernandez v. National Power Colporation )45 the Court,
through Justice Chico-Nazario, ruled:

"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 taw,
this Court declared that courts could not be prevented.
from exercising their power. to restrain or prohibit
administrative acts. In such cases, let the hammer fall
and let it fall hard." (Emphasis supplied)

In this case, the issue is whether the trial court may issue a
TRO or preliminary injunction to restrain the construction and
operation of 29 decagon-shaped steel poles or towers with a height
of 53.4 meters to support overhead high tension cables in
Power
connection with its 230 Kilovolt Sucat-Araneta-Balintawak
through the
Transmission Project. Said transmission line passes
ay), the perimeter
Sergio Osmeiia, Sr. Highway (South Superhighw of
oximate to Tamarind
Fort Bonifacio, and Dasmarinas Village pr Road,
where petitioners' homes are.