G.R. No. 26771, September 23, 1927 (Malcolm, J.) - G.R. NO. 83558, February 27, 1989 (Cortes, J.) - G.R. No. 147861 November 18, 2005 (Tiñga, J.)

Is the Presidential Decree No.
1818 applicable in the subject matter such that the

Regional Trial Court of Daet, Camarines Norte is restricted from issuing an injunctive
writ against Light Rail Transit Authority, a government corporate entity?
Yes, the Presidential Decree No. 1818 is applicable the Light Rail Transit Authority being a
public utility engaged in the transportation of passengers.
The Supreme Court in Ruperto Santos vs. Public Service Commission 1 defined Public
Utility to include every individual, co-partnership, association, corporation or joint stock
company, whether domestic or foreign, their lessees, trustees or receivers appointed by
any court whatsoever, or any municipality, province, or other department of the
Government of the Philippine Islands, that now or hereafter may own, operate, manage or
control within the Philippine Islands any common carrier, railroad, street railway, traction
railway, steamboat or steamship line, small water craft, such as bancas, passenger
automobiles, shipyard, marine railway, marine repair shop, ferry, freight or any other car
service, public warehouse, public wharf or dock not under the jurisdiction of the Insular
Collector of Customs, ice refrigerator, cold storage, canal, irrigation, express, subway, pipe
line, gas, electric light, heat, power, water, oil, sewer, telephone, wire or wireless telegraph
system, plant or equipment, for public use.
Section 1 of the Presidential Decree No. 1818 provides that no Court in the Philippines
shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order, preliminary mandatory injunction in
any case, dispute, or controversy involving an infrastructure project, or a mining, fishery,
forest, or other natural resource development project of the government, or any public
utility operated by the government, including among others public utilities for the
transport of goods or commodities, stevedoring and arrastre contracts, to prohibit any
person or persons, entity or government officials from proceeding with, or continuing the
execution or implementation of any such project, or the operation of such public utility, or
pursuing any lawful activity necessary for such execution, implementation or operation.
In the case of National Power Corporation vs. Hon. Abraham Vera 2, the Supreme Court
ruled that National Power Corporation enjoys the protective mantle of Presidential Decree
No. 1818 being a public utility created under special legislation engaged in the generation
and distribution of electric power and energy.
In the case of Philippine Ports Authority vs. Court of Appeals 3, the Supreme Court ruled
that there are only two exceptional circumstances which warrant the non-observance of
the Presidential Decree No. 1818, namely: (1) where there is grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the government authority or private person being enjoined; and (2) where the
effect of the non-issuance of an injunction or a restraining order would be to stave off the
implementation of a government project.
1
G.R. no. 26771, September 23, 1927 (Malcolm, J.).
2
G.R. NO. 83558, February 27, 1989 (Cortes, J.).
3
G.R. No. 147861; November 18, 2005 (Tiñga, J.).
The Light Rail Transit Authority in exercised its right to terminate the contract it entered
into with Kempal Construction and Supply Corporation within the bounds of Republic Act
No. 9184 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations after Kempal Construction and
Supply Corporation failed to deliver the train lift as agreed upon thereby placing Kempal
Construction and Supply Corporation in default. Unless showing of clear proof that Light
Rail Transit Authority acted with grave abuse of discretion in the termination of the
contract and issuing the blacklisting order, the Presidential Decree No. 1818 shall apply.
Likewise, the non-issuance of the injunctive writ would allow Light Rail Transit Authority
to exercise its right to look for other suppliers who can provide the train lift system needed
for its efficient operation. Hence, the second circumstance mentioned in Philippine Ports
Authority vs. Court of Appeals shall not apply.
Therefore, applying Section 1 of the Presidential Decree No. 1818, the application for
preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order filed by Kempal Construction and
Supply Corporation should be denied.
Can the Regional Trial Court of Daet, Camarines Sur compel Light Rail Transit to
cancel its earlier decision terminating the contract and to lift the blacklisting order?
No, an act already accomplished can no longer be subject to injunction. As a general rule, an
injuction would not lie where the acts sought to be enjoined is an act already accomplished
or consummated.
The Supreme Court in the case of Philippine National Bank vs. Hon. Midpantao Adil 4
ruled that a prohibitory injunction cannot be issued when the act sought to be enjoined has
already been committed. Neither can a mandatory injuction issue, for it is well-settled rule
that injunction will not lie to take the property out of control of the party in possession.
In the case of Rosita David vs. Spouses Navarro 5, the Supreme Court ruled that writ of
preliminary injunction will not issue if the act sought to be enjoined is a fait accompli or an
act already accomplished or consummated.
4
G.R. NO. L-52823, November 2, 1982 (De Castro, J.).
5
G.R. No. 145284, February 11, 2004 (Callejo, Sr., J.).

G.R. No. 26771, September 23, 1927 (Malcolm, J.) - G.R. NO. 83558, February 27, 1989 (Cortes, J.) - G.R. No. 147861 November 18, 2005 (Tiñga, J.)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 26771, September 23, 1927 (Malcolm, J.) - G.R. NO. 83558, February 27, 1989 (Cortes, J.) - G.R. No. 147861 November 18, 2005 (Tiñga, J.)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 26771, September 23, 1927 (Malcolm, J.) - G.R. NO. 83558, February 27, 1989 (Cortes, J.) - G.R. No. 147861 November 18, 2005 (Tiñga, J.)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Is the Presidential Decree No.

1818 applicable in the subject matter such that the

You might also like