GR 124130; (June, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124130 June 29, 1998
GOVERNOR PABLO P. GARCIA, THE PROVINCE OF CEBU; TOMAS R. OSMEÑA; MAYOR ALVIN B. GARCIA, THE CITY OF CEBU; ALLAN C. GAVIOLA, City Administrator; JOSE A. GUISADIO, City Planning and Development Officer; METRO CEBU DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICE; BASHIR D. RASUMAN, Regional Director, Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Region VII; ROMEO C. ESCANDOR, Regional Director, National Economic and Development Board (NEDA), Region VII; and LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE P. BURGOS in his capacity as presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Cebu City; and MALAYAN INTEGRATED INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
The Cebu South Reclamation Project (CSRP) is a P4-billion government infrastructure project funded by a loan from the Japanese Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund. It is part of the Metro Cebu Development Project Phase III, approved by the President and the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). The City of Cebu was designated as the implementing agency. On January 19, 1996, private respondent Malayan Integrated Industries Corporation filed a complaint for Specific Performance, Declaration of Nullity, Damages and Injunction against the petitioners before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 17, presided by Judge Jose P. Burgos. Malayan sought to enjoin the implementation of a Memorandum of Agreement dated September 11, 1995, concerning the CSRP, claiming it infringed on Malayan’s prior contractual rights. Despite petitioners’ invocation of Presidential Decree No. 1818, which prohibits courts from issuing injunctions against government infrastructure projects, and Supreme Court Administrative Circulars 13-93 and 68-94 reiterating this prohibition, respondent judge issued a temporary restraining order on February 5, 1996. Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion to lift the TRO and dismiss the complaint, which was denied in an Order dated February 22, 1996. Subsequently, the judge granted Malayan’s application for a writ of preliminary injunction in an Order dated March 18, 1996. Petitioners assailed these orders via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court, through Judge Jose P. Burgos, acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction against the implementation of the Cebu South Reclamation Project, a government infrastructure project, in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1818 and pertinent Supreme Court circulars.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The assailed Orders of the respondent judge dated February 22, 1996, March 12, 1996, and March 18, 1996, were REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The temporary restraining order was made permanent. The respondent judge was ordered to inhibit himself from further hearing the case, and Civil Case No. CEB-18292 was ordered to be re-raffled.
The Court held that Presidential Decree No. 1818 explicitly prohibits any court from issuing a restraining order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction in any case involving an infrastructure project of the government. The Cebu South Reclamation Project is unequivocally a government infrastructure project, as evidenced by its funding through a Japanese government loan, approval by the President and NEDA, and designation of a government entity (City of Cebu) as the implementing agency. The prohibition under P.D. 1818 is absolute and allows for no exceptions. The respondent judge’s attempt to distinguish the case by claiming the injunction was aimed at a contract rather than the project itself was a misapplication of the law; enjoining the implementing agreement would directly disrupt the project. The judge’s actions constituted a blatant violation of a valid law and the Supreme Court’s circulars (Administrative Circular Nos. 13-93 and 68-94) issued to ensure its strict compliance. Such defiance of a known legal injunction constituted grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the judge’s act of reconsidering his own voluntary inhibition raised suspicions of impartiality. The Supreme Court emphasized that judges must obey the laws and circulars issued by the higher court, and their failure to do so undermines the integrity of the judiciary.