G.R. No. 265153. April 12, 2023.
ILOILO GRAIN COMPLEX CORPORATION, PETITIONER VS. HON. MA. THERESA N. ENRIQUEZ-GASPAR, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC-ILOILO CITY, BRANCH 33, AND NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Iloilo Grain Complex Corporation (IGCC) owns an industrial property in Iloilo City. Respondent National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP), holder of a national franchise under Republic Act No. 9511 with the right of eminent domain, sought to acquire a portion of IGCC’s property for its Ingore Cable Terminal Station and Panay-Guimaras 138kV Transmission Line Project. NGCP’s initial offer to buy the property was rejected by IGCC as too low. NGCP then filed a Complaint for expropriation with an urgent prayer for a writ of possession. IGCC filed an Answer with a motion for preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses, challenging the necessity of the expropriation, alleging lack of Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) approval, lack of prior negotiation in good faith, and claiming NGCP’s chosen curved line path was not reasonably necessary compared to a straight-line alternative. Without conducting a hearing, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued an Order granting NGCP’s Motion for Actual Issuance of a Writ of Possession, citing compliance with OCA Circular No. 113-2019 and payment of the deposit. The RTC subsequently denied IGCC’s Motion for Reconsideration, holding that ERC approval was not an indispensable requisite. IGCC filed directly with the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with an Application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, which the Court granted.

ISSUE

1. Did the filing of the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition directly with the Supreme Court violate the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?
2. Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion when it issued the assailed writ of possession?

RULING

1. No, the direct filing did not violate the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The Supreme Court held that the case involves a pure question of law, specifically the interpretation of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8975, which prohibits any court except the Supreme Court from issuing a TRO or preliminary injunction against the acquisition of right-of-way for a national government project. Furthermore, the petition raised a constitutional issue concerning due process. These exceptions justified direct resort to the Supreme Court.
2. Yes, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession. The Supreme Court ruled that the issuance of a writ of possession in expropriation cases, while generally ministerial upon compliance with legal requirements, is not absolute. The trial court must first conduct a hearing to determine the existence of a prima facie case for expropriation, which includes verifying the plaintiff’s legal authority and the genuine necessity of the taking. The RTC’s failure to conduct any hearing before issuing the writ, despite IGCC’s timely challenge to NGCP’s authority and the necessity of the expropriation based on specific affirmative defenses, constituted a violation of IGCC’s right to due process. The Court emphasized that the requirement for a hearing is particularly crucial when the defendant raises specific and substantive challenges to the expropriation’s validity. The assailed Orders were annulled and set aside, and the case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.