Reiteration on the Prohibition on the Issuance of Restraining Orders or Writs of Injunction Against National Government Infrastructure Projects

October 19, 2022

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 289-2022

 

On 12 March 2014, this Office issued OCA Circular No. 38-2014 (Re: Judicious Implementation of Court Issuances Concerning the Ban on the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders or Writs of Preliminary Injunctions Involving Government Infrastructure Projects), wherein all Judges of the first and second level courts are exhorted to continuously observe and implement various administrative issuances of the Court prohibiting the issuances of temporary restraining orders (TROs) and writs of preliminary injunction involving government infrastructure projects and, in exceptional cases, to ensure that such cases after the TRO is converted into a writ of preliminary injunction are solved in a speedy and timely manner.

Significantly, on 20 November 2002, the Court issued Administrative Circular No. 62-2002 as a reminder to all the trial judges to observe the prohibition against the issuance of TROs and writs of preliminary injunction in cases involving government infrastructure projects pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 07-99 dated 25 June 1999 1 and Administrative Circular No. 11-2000 dated 13 November 2000, 2 and to submit status reports of TROs and writs of preliminary injunction issued thereon.

Corollarily, on 20 July 2022, the Court's Third Division issued a Resolution in G.R. No. 225942 (Metro Rail Transit Corporation and Metro Rail Transit Holdings II, Inc. v. Department of Transportation [Formerly], Department of Transportation and Communications), which REMINDED all concerned collegiate and trial courts on the prohibition from the issuance of restraining orders or writs of injunction against national government infrastructure projects, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 8975, otherwise known as "An Act to Ensure the Expeditious Implementation and Completion of Government Infrastructure Projects by Prohibiting Lower Courts from Issuing Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions or Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions, Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof, and for Other Purposes."

The following are the salient dispositions of the aforesaid Resolution:

1. RA 8975 enjoins all courts, except the Supreme Court, from issuing any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction against the government, or any of its subdivisions, officials or any person or entity to restrain, prohibit or compel the bidding or awarding of a contract or project of the national government;

2. The Court affirmed the rulings of both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals which denied the plea for an injunction against the Department of Transportation (DOTr); and

3. The petitioners are not entitled to an injunction against the DOTr as they failed to prove that they stand to suffer some grave and irreparable injury. The Court elucidated that "there is still no basis for the issuance of a WPI because, as explained by the [Court of Appeals], it can be compensable through the award of damages. As the damages alleged by them can be quantified, it cannot be considered as "grave and irreparable injury" as understood in law."

On account thereof, and in order "(a) to avoid unnecessary increase in construction costs; and (b) to allow the public to enjoy soonest the benefits of national government projects," 3 all concerned are hereby DIRECTED to take note of the afore-discussed issuances of the Court, especially when applicable to particular cases before them.

For your information and guidance.

(SGD.) RAUL B. VILLANUEVACourt Administrator

Footnotes

1. Exercise of Utmost Caution, Prudence, and Judiciousness in Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders or Writs of Preliminary Injunction.

2. Ban on the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders or Writs of Preliminary Prohibitory or Mandatory Injunction on Cases Involving Government Infrastructure Projects.

3. G.R. No. 225942 (Metro Rail Transit Corporation and Metro Rail Transit Holdings II, Inc. v. Department of Transportation [Formerly], Department of Transportation and Communications).