G.R. No. 215547, February 03, 2020
Spouses Prudente D. Soller and Preciosa M. Soller, Raffy Telosa, and Gavino Manibo, Jr., Petitioners, v. Hon. Rogelio Singson, in his capacity as Secretary of Department of Public Works and Highways, Engr. Magtanggol Roldan, in his capacity as District Engineer of the Department of Public Works and Highways-Oriental Mindoro, Second District Office, King’s Builders and Development Corporation, and its President, Engr. Elegio Malaluan, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners are owners of parcels of land near the Strong Republic Nautical Highway at Poblacion, Bansud, Oriental Mindoro. They filed a petition for Permanent Injunction and damages with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)/Preliminary Injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 41. They alleged that the elevation project of the national highway between kilometer 90 and 92 near the Bansud River Bridge, undertaken by respondent King’s Builders and Development Corporation, endangered their safety by blocking and retaining floodwaters, submerging their properties, and impairing their use and enjoyment due to the steep climb and descent created. Respondents Secretary Rogelio Singson and Engr. Magtanggol Roldan filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the issuance of injunctive writs is prohibited by Presidential Decree No. 1818 and that the doctrine of state immunity from suit applies. The RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding it had no jurisdiction under Republic Act No. 8975. Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Petitioners elevated the matter directly to the Supreme Court via an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the petitioners’ principal action for Permanent Injunction and damages, notwithstanding the prohibition in Republic Act No. 8975 against lower courts issuing temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions on specified government infrastructure projects.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the RTC’s Resolutions, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that while Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8975 expressly vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Supreme Court to issue any TRO, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction against the government to restrain, prohibit, or compel specified acts related to national government projects, this prohibition applies only to temporary or preliminary injunctive reliefs. It does not proscribe courts from issuing a permanent injunction arising from an adjudication of a case on the merits. The principal action in the complaint is one for injunction, which is within the jurisdiction of the RTC as a case where the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The ancillary prayer for a TRO/preliminary injunction does not divest the RTC of jurisdiction over the main action. The Court, exercising its equity jurisdiction, resolved the case on the merits despite petitioners’ procedural lapses in availing the wrong remedy and violating the hierarchy of courts.
