Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > April 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 101476 April 14, 1992 - EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY v. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 101476. April 14, 1992.]

EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, TERESITA VALLES, LORETO ALEDIA and PEDRO ORDOÑEZ, Respondents.

The Government Corporate Counsel for Petitioner.

Marvic M.V.F. Leonen for respondents Valles, Aledia and Ordoñez.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS; LIMITATION ON THE POWER THEREOF TO PROVIDE PREVENTIVE MEASURES AND LEGAL AID SERVICES TO THE UNDERPRIVILEGED WHOSE HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. — The constitutional provision directing the CHR to "provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection" may not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of injunction for, if that were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so. "Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law (Oroso, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 76828-32, 28 January 1991; Bacalso v. Ramolete, G.R. No. L-22488, 26 October 1967, 21 SCRA 519). It is never derived by implication. (Garcia, Et. Al. v. De Jesus, Et Al., G.R. No. 88158; Tobon Uy v. Commission on Election, Et Al., G.R. Nos. 97108-09, March 4, 1992.)

2. ID.; ID.; NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; REASON THEREFOR. — Evidently, the "preventive measures and legal aid services" mentioned in the Constitution refer to extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a preliminary writ of injunction) which the CHR may seek from the proper courts on behalf of the victims of human rights violations. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued "by the judge of any court in which the action is pending [within his district]. or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme Court. It may also be granted by the judge of the Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] in any action pending in an inferior court within his district." (Sec. 2, Rule 58, Rules of Court). A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary remedy. It is available only in a pending principal action, for the preservation or protection of the rights and interests of a party thereto, and for no other purpose.

PADILLA, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS; HAS THE AUTHORITY IN APPROPRIATE CASES TO PROVIDE FOR PREVENTIVE MEASURES AND LEGAL AID SERVICES TO THE UNDERPRIVILEGED WHOSE HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED OR NEED PROTECTION. — Justice Padilla dissents for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in "Hon. Isidro Cariño, Et. Al. v. Commission on Human Rights, Et Al.," G.R. No. 96681, 2 December 1991. In addition, it is his considered view that the CHR has the unquestioned authority in appropriate cases to "provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the under privileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection." (Section 18(c), Article XIII, 1987 Constitution). If the CHR can not, by itself, issue any cease and desist order in order to maintain the status quo pending its investigation of cases involving alleged human rights violations, then it is, in effect, an ineffective instrument for the protection of human rights. He submits that the CHR, consistent with the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, may issue cease and desist orders particularly in situations involving a threatened violation of human rights, which it intends to investigate, and such cease and desist orders may be judicially challenged like the orders of the other constitutional commissions, — which are not courts of law — under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, on grounds of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


On May 30, 1980, P.D. 1980 was issued reserving and designating certain parcels of land in Rosario and General Trias, Cavite, as the "Cavite Export Processing Zone" (CEPZ). For purposes of development, the area was divided into Phases I to IV. A parcel in Phase IV was bought by the Filoil Refinery Corporation. The same parcel was later sold by Filoil to the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA).

Before EPZA could take possession of the area, several individuals had entered the premises and planted agricultural products therein without permission from EPZA or its predecessor, Filoil. To convince the intruders to depart peacefully, EPZA, in 1981, paid a P10,000-financial-assistance to those who accepted the same and signed quitclaims. Among them were Teresita Valles and Alfredo Aledia, father of respondent Loreto Aledia.

Ten years later, on May 10, 1991, respondent Teresita Valles, Loreto Aledia and Pedro Ordoñez filed in the respondent Commission on Human Rights (CHR) a joint complaint (Pinagsamang Salaysay) praying for "justice and other reliefs and remedies" ("Katarungan at iba pang tulong"). The CHR conducted an investigation of the complaint.

According to the CHR, the private respondents, who are farmers, filed in the Commission on May 10, 1991, a verified complaint for violation of their human rights. They alleged that on March 20, 1991, at 10:00 o’clock in the morning, Engineer Neron Damondamon, EPZA Project Engineer, accompanied by his subordinates and members of the 215th PNP Company, brought a bulldozer and a crane to level the area occupied by the private respondents who tried to stop them by showing a copy of a letter from the Office of the President of the Philippines ordering postponement of the bulldozing. However, the letter was crumpled and thrown to the ground by a member of Damondamon’s group who proclaimed that: "The President in Cavite is Governor Remulla!" chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

On April 3, 1991, mediamen who had been invited by the private respondents to cover the happenings in the area were beaten up and their cameras were snatched from them by members of the Philippine National Police and some government officials and their civilian followers.

On May 17, 1991, the CHR issued an Order of injunction commanding EPZA, the 125th PNP Company and Governor Remulla and their subordinates to desist from committing further acts of demolition, terrorism, and harassment until further orders from the Commission and to appear before the Commission on May 27, 1991 at 9:00 a.m. for a dialogue (Annex A).

On May 25, 1991, two weeks later, the same group accompanied by men of Governor Remulla, again bulldozed the area. They allegedly handcuffed private respondent Teresita Valles, pointed their firearms at the other respondents, and fired a shot in the air.

On May 28, 1991, CHR Chairman Mary Concepcion Bautista issued another injunction Order reiterating her order of May 17, 1991 and expanded it to include the Secretary of Public Works and Highways, the contractors, and their subordinates. The order reads as follows:chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

"Considering the sworn statements of the farmers whose farmlands are being bulldozed and the wanton destruction of their irrigation canals which prevent cultivation of the farmlands as well as the claim of ownership of the lands by some farmers-complainants, and their possession and cultivation thereof spanning decades, including the failure of the officials concerned to comply with the Constitutional provision on the eviction of rural ‘squatters’, the Commission reiterates its Order of May 17, 1991, and further orders the Secretary of Public Works and Highways, their Contractors and representatives to refrain and desist from bulldozing the farmlands of the complainants-farmers who have come to the Commission for relief, during the pendency of this investigation and to refrain from further destruction of the irrigation canals in the area until further orders of the Commission.

"This dialogue is reset to June 10, 1991 at 9:00 a.m. and the Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways or his representative is requested to appear." (p. 20, Rollo; Emphasis ours.)

On July 1, 1991, EPZA filed in the CHR a motion to lift the Order of Injunction for lack of authority to issue injunctive writs and temporary restraining orders.

On August 16, 1991, the Commission denied the motion.

On September 11, 1991, the petitioner, through the Government Corporate Counsel, filed in this Court a Special civil action of certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, alleging that the CHR acted in excess of its jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the restraining order and injunctive writ; that the private respondents have no clear, positive right to be protected by an injunction; that the CHR abused its discretion in entertaining the private respondent’s complaint because the issues raised therein had been decided by this Court, hence, it is barred by prior judgment.

On September 19, 1991, this Court issued a temporary restraining order, ordering the CHR to cease and desist from enforcing and/or implementing the questioned injunction orders.

In its comment on the petition, the CHR asked for the immediate lifting of this Court’s restraining order, and for an order restraining petitioner EPZA from doing further acts of destruction and harassment. The CHR contends that its principal function under Section 18, Art. 13 of the 1987 Constitution, "is not limited to mere investigation" because it is mandated, among others, to:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"a. Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights;

"b. Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;

"c. Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the under privileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection;

"d. Monitor the Philippine Government’s compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights. (Emphasis ours.)" (p. 45, Rollo.)

On November 14, 1991, the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion praying that he be excused from filing a Comment for the CHR on the ground that the Comment filed by the latter "fully traversed and squarely met all the issues raised and discussed in the main Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition" (p. 83, Rollo.)cralawnad

Does the CHR have jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction or restraining order against supposed violators of human rights, to compel them to cease and desist from continuing the acts complained of?

In "Hon. Isidro Cariño, Et. Al. v. Commission on Human Rights, Et Al.," G.R. No. 96681, December 2, 1991, we held that the CHR is not a court of justice nor even a quasi-judicial body.

"The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights. But fact-finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or official. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function, properly speaking. To be considered such, the faculty of receiving evidence and making factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitely, subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. This function, to repeat, the Commission does not have.

"x       x       x.

"Hence it is that the Commission on Human Rights, having merely the power ‘to investigate,’ cannot and should not ‘try and resolve on the merits’ (adjudicate) the matters involved in Striking Teachers HRC Case No. 90-775, as it has announced it means to do; and it cannot do so even if there be a claim that in the administrative disciplinary proceedings against the teachers in question, initiated and conducted by the DECS, their human rights, or civil or political rights had been transgressed. More particularly, the Commission has no power to ‘resolve on the merits’ the question of (a) whether or not the mass concerted actions engaged in by the teachers constitute a strike and are prohibited or otherwise restricted by law; (b) whether or not the act of carrying on and taking part in those actions, and the failure of the teachers to discontinue those actions and return to their classes despite the order to this effect by the Secretary of Education, constitute infractions of relevant rules and regulations warranting administrative disciplinary sanctions, or are justified by the grievances complained of by them; and (c) what were the particular acts done by each individual teacher and what sanctions, if any, may properly be imposed for said acts or omissions." (pp. 5 & 8.)

The constitutional provision directing the CHR to "provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection" may not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of injunction for, if that were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so. "Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law (Oroso, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 76828-32, 28 January 1991; Bacalso v. Ramolete, G.R. No. L-22488, 26 October 1967, 21 SCRA 519). It is never derived by implication. (Garcia, Et. Al. v. De Jesus, Et Al., G.R. No. 88158; Tobon Uy v. Commission on Election, Et Al., G.R. Nos. 97108-09. March 4, 1992.).

Evidently, the "preventive measures and legal aid services" mentioned in the Constitution refer to extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a preliminary writ of injunction) which the CHR may seek from the proper courts on behalf of the victims of human rights violations. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued "by the judge of any court in which the action is pending [within his district], or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme Court. It may also be granted by the judge of a Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial court] in any action pending in an inferior court within his district." (Sec. 2, Rule 58, Rules of Court). A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary remedy. It is available only in a pending principal action, for the preservation or protection of the rights and interests of a party thereto, and for no other purpose.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED. The orders of injunction dated May 17 and 28, 1991 issued by the respondent Commission on Human Rights, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and the temporary restraining order which this Court issued on September 19, 1991, is hereby made PERMANENT.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Bidin, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero and Nocon, JJ., concur.

Feliciano and Bellosillo, JJ., are on leave.

Separate Opinions


PADILLA, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I dissent for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in "Hon. Isidro Cariño, Et. Al. v. Commission on Human Rights, Et Al.," G.R. No. 96681, 2 December 1991. In addition, it is my considered view that the CHR has the unquestioned authority in appropriate cases to "provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the under privileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection." (Section 18(c), Article XIII, 1987 Constitution).

If the CHR can not, by itself, issue any cease and desist order in order to maintain the status quo pending its investigation of case involving alleged human rights violations, then it is, in effect, an ineffective instrument for the protection of human rights. I submit that the CHR, consistent with the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, may issue cease and desist orders particularly in situations involving a threatened violation of human rights, which it intends to investigate, and such cease and desist orders may be judicially challenged like the orders of the other constitutional commissions, — which are not courts of law — under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, on grounds of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the petition and to remand the case to the CHR for further proceedings (investigation).




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. 81559-60 April 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. DAVID G. NITAFAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84525 April 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO L. MAUYAO

  • G.R. No. 96401 April 6, 1992 - NEMESIO N. ATIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77365 April 7, 1992 - RITA CALEON v. AGUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87880 April 7, 1992 - CECILIA MATA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88515-16 April 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLY P. BAGAWE

  • G.R. No. 93355 April 7, 1992 - LUIS B. DOMINGO v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97308 April 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PETER HATAGUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95907 April 8, 1992 - JOSE REYNANTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100599 April 8, 1992 - AL-AMANAH ISLAMIC INVESTMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-90-417 April 10, 1992 - JOSE A. GALAN v. EVELYN NAPASE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49019 April 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CITY COURT, BRANCH III OF GENERAL SANTOS CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67485 April 10, 1992 - NACUSIP v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72247 April 10, 1992 - RED V COCONUT PRODUCTS, LTD. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79316 April 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 82067 April 10, 1992 - LUCILYN T. ZAMBRANO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90015 April 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO C. VENTURA

  • G.R. No. 93408 April 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO M. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 94070 April 10, 1992 - ROSALINDA DE PERIO SANTOS v. CATALINO MACARAIG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94755 April 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO A. MORENO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97217 April 10, 1992 - CHEMPHIL EXPORT AND IMPORT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97434 April 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO DEVELLES

  • G.R. No. 97637 April 10, 1992 - WILMON AUTO SUPPLY CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 98340-42 April 10, 1992 - MARIANO J. PIMENTEL, ET AL. v. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101476 April 14, 1992 - EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY v. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103524 April 15, 1992 - CESAR BENGZON, ET AL. v. FRANKLIN N. DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49983 April 20, 1992 - FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87644 April 20, 1992 - G & P MANPOWER SERVICES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89454 April 20, 1992 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 27876 April 22, 1992 - ADELAIDA S. MANECLANG v. JUAN T. BAUN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60222 April 22, 1992 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 76002 April 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULITO NAGUITA

  • G.R. No. 76265 April 22, 1992 - VIRGINIA CALALANG v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83837-42 April 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92403 April 22, 1992 - VICTOR A. AQUINO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91636 April 23, 1992 - PETER JOHN D. CALDERON v. BARTOLOME CARALE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101028 April 23, 1992 - FELICIANA LICAYAN TALE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87186 April 24, 1992 - CAMILO VILLA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94546 April 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANFILO DIGA

  • G.R. No. 97039 April 24, 1992 - CONCORDIO ABELLANA, SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100749 April 24, 1992 - GT PRINTERS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.