EN BANC
G.R. No. 174202, April 07, 2015
DYNAMIC BUILDERS & CONSTRUCTION CO. (PHIL.), INC., Petitioner, v. HON. RICARDO P. PRESBITERO, JR., MAYOR AND HEAD OF PROCURING UNIT OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF VALLADOLID, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL; BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE, MUNICIPALITY OF VALLADOLID, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL; AND HENRY L. JORDAN AND/OR HLJ CONSTRUCTION AND ENTERPRISE, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Republic Act No. 8975 does not sanction splitting a cause of action in order for a party to avail itself of the ancillary remedy of a temporary restraining order from this court. Also, this law covers only national government infrastructure projects. This case involves a local government infrastructure project.
For local government infrastructure projects, Regional Trial Courts may issue provisional injunctive reliefs against government infrastructure projects only when (1) there are compelling and substantial constitutional violations; (2) there clearly exists a right in esse; (3) there is a need to prevent grave and irreparable injuries; (4) there is a demonstrable urgency to the issuance of the injunctive relief; and (5) when there are public interest at stake in restraining or enjoining the project while the action is pending that far outweighs (a) the inconvenience or costs to the party to whom the project is awarded and (b) the public benefits that will result from the completion of the project. The time periods for the validity of temporary restraining orders issued by trial courts should be strictly followed. No preliminary injunction should issue unless the evidence to support the injunctive relief is clear and convincing.
We are asked by Dynamic Builders & Construction Co. (Phil.), Inc. (Dynamic Builders) through this Petition for prohibition with application for issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction1 that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1. Upon the filing of this petition, a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction be immediately issued restraining and enjoining:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryOn December 28, 2005, the Municipality of Valladolid, Negros Occidental, through its Bids and Awards Committee, published an invitation to bid for the construction of a 1,050-lineal-meter rubble concrete seawall along the municipality's shoreline.3 This infrastructure venture is known as the "Construction Shoreline Protection Project."42. Thereafter, a writ of prohibition be issued and/or the preliminary injunction be made permanent and continuing, during the pendency of Civil Case No. 1459 before the Regional Trial Court of Bago City.
(a) the enforcement or execution of the 12 June 2006 Decision and the 30 June 2006 Resolution by the Hon. Ricardo P. Presbitero, Jr., Mayor of the Municipality of Valladolid and Head of the Procuring Entity in Protest Case No. BPC-01-06 entitled "Dynamic Builders & Construction Company (Phil.), Inc. v. Bids And Awards Committee, Municipality of Valladolid, Negros Occidental" by the respondents, or their agents, or anyone acting in their behalf, or anyone who stands to benefit from such order, in any manner, during the pendency of the proceedings in Civil Case No. 1459 in order not to render further proceedings in Civil Case No. 1459 moot and academic and any judgment in the said case ineffectual; (b) the implementation of the award of the Construction Shoreline Protection Project subject of Protest Case No. BPC-01-06, during the pendency of Civil Case No. 1459, by the respondents, or their agents, or anyone acting in their behalf, or anyone who stands to benefit from such implementation, in any manner, during the pendency of the proceedings in Civil Case No. 1459 in order not to render further proceedings in Civil Case No. 1459 moot and any judgment in the said case ineffectual; and
Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise prayed for.2cralawlawlibrary
On March 27, 2006, the Bids and Awards Committee issued Resolution No. 6 recommending the award in favor of HLJ Construction and Enterprise.9
Mig-wells Const Corp P35,561,015.33 Highest Bidder ADP Const & Supply P34,778,496.72 3rd Lowest Bidder Dynamic Builders & Const P29,750,000.00 Lowest Bidder HLJ Const & Ent. P31,922,420.27 2nd Lowest Bidder
By Resolution dated September 18, 2006, this court ordered the parties to "MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO as of September 18, 2006 effective immediately until further orders from the Court."43
(1) Petitioner was denied due process when the contract was awarded to private respondent HLJ Construction and Enterprise without first giving the former an opportunity to avail itself of the remedies under R.A. No. 9184[;] (2) The award of the contract to private respondent HLJ Construction and Enterprise violated Section 57 of R.A. No. 9184[;] (3) Contrary to the findings of public respondents, the bid submitted by petitioner was responsive[;] [and] (4) For having in fact submitted the Lowest Calculated Responsive Bid, petitioner should be awarded the contract for the Construction of 1,050 Lineal Meter Rubble Concrete Seawall of the Municipality of Valladolid, Negros Occidental.42
a) Whether petitioner violated the rules against the splitting of a cause of action, multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping;Second, whether Article XVII, Section 58 of Republic Act No. 9184, in relation to Republic Act No. 8975 and Presidential Decree No. 1818, allows Regional Trial Courts to issue injunctive relief subject to the presence of certain conditions; and
b) Whether petitioner violated the doctrine on hierarchy of courts; and
c) Whether petitioner resorted to an improper remedy when it filed a petition for prohibition with this court.
Sec. 58. Report to Regular Courts; Certiorari. - Court action may be resorted to only after the protests contemplated in this Article shall have been completed. Cases that are filed in violation of the process specified in this Article shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The regional trial court shall have jurisdiction over final decisions of the head of the procuring entity. Court actions shall be governed by Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.Section 58 could not have envisioned a simultaneous resort to this court by one that had already filed an action before the Regional Trial Court without violating the basic rules on proscription against the splitting of a cause of action, multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping.
This provision is without prejudice to any law conferring on the Supreme Court the sole jurisdiction to issue temporary restraining orders and injunctions relating to Infrastructure Projects of Government. (Emphasis supplied)
In essence, forum shopping is the practice of litigants resorting to two different fora for the purpose of obtaining the same relief, to increase their chances of obtaining a favorable judgment. In determining whether forum shopping exists, it is important to consider the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by a person who asks appellate courts and/or administrative entities to rule on the same related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same relief, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions by the different courts or fora on the same issues. We have ruled that forum shopping is present when, in two or more cases pending, there is identity of (1) parties (2) rights or causes of action and reliefs prayed for and (3) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.60cralawlawlibraryPrivate respondent alleges that petitioner did not even notify the Regional Trial Court of Bago City, Negros Occidental, of its Petition filed before this court.61
Clearly, the proper recourse to a court action from decisions of the BAC, such as this one, is to file a certiorari not before the Supreme Court but before the regional trial court which is vested by R.A. No. 9184 with jurisdiction to entertain the same. In the recent case of First United Constructors Corporation v. Poro Point Management Corporation, we held that while indeed the certiorari jurisdiction of the regional trial court is concurrent with this Court's, that fact alone does not allow an unrestricted freedom of choice of the court forum. But since this is not an iron-clad rule and the full discretionary power to take cognizance of and assume jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari directly filed with the Court may actually be exercised by it, it is nevertheless imperative that the Court's intervention be called for by exceptionally compelling reasons or be warranted by the nature of the issues involved. In other words, a direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue the writ will be allowed only when there are special and important reasons clearly and specifically set out in the petition.64 (Citations omitted)The hierarchy of courts must be respected. The doctrine with respect to hierarchy of courts was designed so that this court will have more time to focus on its constitutional tasks without the need to deal with causes that also fall within the lower courts' competence.65 This court acts on petitions for extraordinary writs under Rule 65 "only when absolutely necessary or when serious and important reasons exist to justify an exception to the policy."66
Sec. 3. Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions and Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions. - No court, except the Supreme Court, shall issue any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against the government, or any of its subdivisions, officials or any person or entity, whether public or private, acting under the government's direction, to restrain, prohibit or compel the following acts:When the matter is of "extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue," even Regional Trial Courts may grant injunctive reliefs as explained in Republic v. Nolasco:75ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
. . . .
This prohibition shall apply in all cases, disputes or controversies instituted by a private party, including but not limited, to cases filed by bidders or those claiming to have rights through such bidders involving such contract/project. This prohibition shall not apply when the matter is of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue, such that unless a temporary restraining order is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise. The applicant shall file a bond, in an amount to be fixed by the court, which bond shall accrue in favor of the government if the court should, finally decide that the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought. (Emphasis supplied)
Republic Act No. 8975 definitively 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, precisely the situation that obtains in this case with respect to the Agno River Project. The only exception would be if the matter is of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue, such that unless the temporary restraining order is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise.76 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)Considering that petitioner alleges that this matter is "of extreme urgency, involving as it does the . . . constitutional right[s] to due process and equal protection of the law,"77 it should have prayed for injunctive relief before the trial court where its Petition for Certiorari via Rule 65 was pending, together with a bond fixed by the court.
In 2000, Republic Act No. 8975 was passed. Section 3 of the law provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryPRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1818
PROHIBITING COURTS FROM ISSUING RESTRAINING ORDERS OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS IN CASES INVOLVING INFRASTRUCTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS OF, AND PUBLIC UTILITIES OPERATED BY, THE GOVERNMENT.
WHEREAS, Presidential Decree No. 605 prohibits the issuance by the courts of restraining orders or injunctions in cases involving concessions, licenses, and other permits issued by administrative officials or bodies for the exploitation, development and utilization of natural resources of the country;
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to adopt a similar prohibition against the issuance of such restraining orders or injunctions in other areas of activity equally critical to the economic development effort of the nation, in order not to disrupt or hamper the pursuit of essential government projects;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby decree and order as follows:
Section 1. No court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order, preliminary injunction, or 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 the goods or commodities, stevedoring and arrastre contracts, to prohibit any person or persons, entity or government official 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.
Section 2. This decree shall take effect immediately. (Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 3. Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions and Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions. - No court, except the Supreme Court, shall issue any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against the government or any of its subdivisions, officials or any person or entity, whether public or private, acting under the government's direction, to restrain, prohibit or compel the following acts:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryPetitioner submits that since the repealing clause of Republic Act No. 8975 has "amended accordingly" Presidential Decree No. 1818, the prohibition no longer extends to this court.80 Section 9 reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(a) Acquisition, clearance and development of the right-of-way and/or site or location of any national government project;This prohibition shall apply in all cases, disputes or controversies instituted by a private party, including but not limited to cases filed by bidders or those claiming to have rights through such bidders involving such contract/project. This prohibition shall not apply when the matter is of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue, such that unless a temporary restraining order is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise. The applicant shall file a bond, in an amount to be fixed by the court, which bond shall accrue in favor of the government if the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought.
(b) Bidding or awarding of contract/project of the national government as defined under Section 2 hereof;
(c) Commencement, prosecution, execution, implementation, operation of any such contract or project;
(d) Termination or rescission of any such contract/project; and
(e) The undertaking or authorization of any other lawful activity necessary for such contract/project.
If after due hearing the court finds that the award of the contract is null and void, the court may, if appropriate under the circumstances, award the contract to the qualified and winning bidder or order a rebidding of the same, without prejudice to any liability that the guilty party may incur under existing laws. (Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 9. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, including Presidential Decree Nos. 605, 1818 and Republic Act No. 7160, as amended, orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.81cralawlawlibraryPetitioner argues that even if Republic Act No. 8975 only mentions national government infrastructure projects, Section 9 has accordingly amended Presidential Decree No. 1818, such that the projects covered by this earlier law, like those undertaken by local governments, are similarly covered by the removal of the prohibition against this court.82
Although Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits any court from issuing injunctions in cases involving infrastructure projects, the prohibition extends only to the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases. On issues clearly outside this dimension and involving questions of law, this Court declared that courts could not be prevented from exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts. In such cases, let the hammer fall and let it fall hard.83 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)We also consider the second paragraph of Republic Act No. 8975, Section 3 on the exception to the prohibition:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This prohibition shall apply in all cases, disputes or controversies instituted by a private party, including but not limited to cases filed by bidders or those claiming to have rights through such bidders involving such contract/project. This prohibition shall not apply when the matter is of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue, such that unless a temporary restraining order is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise. The applicant shall file a bond, in an amount to be fixed by the court, which bond shall accrue in favor of the government if the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought. (Emphasis supplied)In other words, the Regional Trial Court can issue injunctive relief against government infrastructure projects, even those undertaken by local governments, considering that the prohibition in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8957 only mentions national government projects. These courts can issue injunctive relief when there are compelling constitutional violations — only when the right is clear, there is a need to prevent grave and irreparable injuries, and the public interest at stake in restraining or enjoining the project while the action is pending far outweighs the inconvenience or costs to the party to whom the project is awarded.
Section 1. Declaration of Policy. - Article XII, Section 6 of the Constitution states that the use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the common good. Towards this end, the State shall ensure the expeditious and efficient- implementation and completion of government infrastructure projects to avoid unnecessary increase in construction, maintenance and/or repair costs and to immediately enjoy the social and economic benefits therefrom.85 (Emphasis supplied)There is no need for this court to labor on petitioner's arguments regarding violations of due process and equal protection of the law and the alleged grave injustice and irreparable injury petitioner suffered. The Petition's incorporation of its discussion on these arguments, as made in its Petition before the Regional Trial Court docketed as Civil Case No. 1459, only emphasizes the splitting of a cause of action committed.
However, it must be clarified that Republic Act No. 8975 does not ordinarily warrant the outright dismissal of any complaint or petition before the lower courts seeking permanent injunctive relief from the implementation of national government infrastructure projects. What is expre'ssly prohibited by the statute is the issuance of the provisional reliefs of temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and preliminary mancatory injunctions. It does not preclude the lower courts from assuming jurisdiction over complaints or petitions that seek as ultimate relief the nullification or implementation of a national government infrastructure project. A statute such as Republic Act No. 8975 cannot diminish the constitutionally mandated judicial power to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. Section 3 of the law in fact mandates, thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryIf after due hearing the court finds that the award of the contract is null and void, the court may, if appropriate under the circumstances, award the contract to the qualified and winning bidder or order a rebidding of the same, without prejudice to any liability that the guilty party may incur under existing laws.Thus, when a court is called upon to rule on an initiatory pleading ing any material aspect pertinent to a national government infrastructure project, the court ordinarily may not dismiss the action based solely on Republic Act No. 8975 but is merely enjoined from granting provisional reliefs. If no other ground obtains to dismiss the action, the court should decide the case on the merits.86 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
The status quo should be that existing at the time of the filing of the case. The status quo usually preserved by a preliminary injunction is the last actual, peaceable and uncontested status which preceded the actual controversy. The status quo ante litem is, ineluctably, the state of affairs which is existing at the time of the filing of the case. Indubitably, the trial court must not make use of its injunctive power to alter such status.94 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
The ordinary meaning of status quo is "the existing state of affairs[,]"95 while status quo ante refers to "the state of affairs that existed previously."96
Relying in good faith on the ordinary meaning of status quo as differentiated from status quo ante, respondents pushed through with the construction, which had been the existing state of affairs at the time the September 18, 2006 Resolution was issued.
This is consistent with Republic Act No. 8975's policy that "the State shall ensure the expeditious and efficient implementation and completion of government infrastructure projects to avoid unnecessary increase in construction, maintenance and/or repair costs and to immediately enjoy the social and economic benefits therefrom."97 This policy declaration does not distinguish between national and local government infrastructure projects. Delay in the project will only mean additional costs for the government and prejudice to the people of the Municipality of Valladolid who will directly benefit from the Construction Shoreline Protection Project.cralawred
WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing, the Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The verified Petition to Cite Respondents for Contempt dated December 11, 2006 is likewise DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sereno, C. J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Villarama, Jr., J., on official leave.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., on leave.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-40.
2 Id. at 35-36.
3 Id. at 9 and 45.
4 Id. at 3-4.
5 Id. at 9 and 45.
6 Id. at 45.
7 Id. at 46.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 10 and 48.
10 LOGOFIND stands for Local Government Finance and Development.
11Rollo, pp. 10 and 48.
12 Id. at 10 and 49.
13 Id. at 11 and 49.
14 Id. at 11.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 12 and 49.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 13 and 49.
20 Id. at 44-64.
21 Id. at 46.
22 Id.
23 Id. at 46-47.
24 Id. at 47.
25 Id. at 47-48.
26 Id. at 48.
27 Id. at 65-66.
28 Id. at 14.
29 Id. at 3-39.
30 Id. at 14.
31 Id. at 3.
32 Id. at 15.
33 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 (2000).
34 Prohibiting Courts from Issuing Restraining Orders or Preliminary Injunctions in Cases Involving Infrastructure and Natural Resource Development Projects of, and Public Utilities Operated by, the Government (1981).
35Rollo, p. 18.
36 G.R. No. 167840, June 29, 2005 [Unsigned Resolution, Third Division].
37Rollo, p. 19.
38 Id. at 20-21.
39 Id. at 22.
40 Id. at 32-33.
41 Id. at 32.
42 Id. at 24.
43 Id. at 156 and 240.
44 Id. at 193-208.
45 Id. at 194.
46 Id. at 199.
47 Id. at 203.
48 Id. at 199.
49 Id. at 201.
50 Id. at 202.
51 Id. at 180.
52 Id. at 183.
53 Id. at 187.
54 Id. at 240-246.
55 Id. at 241.
56 Id. at 287-291 and 299-306.
57 Id. at 195.
58 Id. at 15.
59Chu v. Spouses Cuncman, G.R. No. 156185, September 12, 2011, 657 SCRA 379, 390 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
60Air Material Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. Manay, 575 Phil. 591, 604 (2008) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Third Division], citing La Campana Development Corp. v. See, 525 Phil. 652, 656 (2006) [Per J. Corona, Second Division].
61Rollo, p. 181.
62 RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, sec 4.
63 645 Phil. 309 (2010) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].
64 Id. at 319.
65 Bañez, Jr. v. Conception, G.R. No. 159508, August 29, 2012, 679 SCRA 237, 250 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
66 Id. See also Hon. Fortich v. Hon. Corona, 352 Phil. 461, 480 (1998) [Per J. Martinez, Second Division].
67See Overseas Workers Welfare Administration v. Chavez, 551 Phil. 890, 9-15 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division], citing Laxina, Sr. v. Office of the Ombudsman, 508 Phil. 527, 541 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division]. See also Heirs of Roxas, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 255 Phil. 558, 575 (1989) [Per J. Cortes, Third Division], citing Cabahero v. Torres, 61 Phil. 522, 524-525 (1935) [Per J. Abad Santos, En Banc]; Agustin, et al. v. De la Fuente, 84 Phil. 515, 517 (1949) [Per J. A. Reyes, En Banc]; Navarro v. Lardizabal, 134 Phil. 331, 337 (1968) [Per J. Angeles, En Banc].
68Spouses Caviles v. Court of Appeals, 438 Phil. 13, 25 (2002) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division], citing Pimentel v. Angeles, 150-A Phil. 743, 749 (1972) [Per J. Teehankee, En Banc] and J. Concepcion, Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in Aytona v. Castillo, G.R. No. L-19313, January 19, 1962, 4 SCRA 1, 17-18 [Per C.J. Bengzon, En Banc].
69 Id.
70Delfin v. Court of Appeals, 121 Phil. 346, 348-349 (1965) [Per J. J.P. Bengzon, En Banc]. RULES OF Court, Rule 65, sec. 2.
71Spouses Caviles v. Court of Appeals, 438 Phil. 13, 24 (2002) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division], citing Solidum v. Hernandez, 117 Phil. 335, 340 (1963) [Per J. Regala, En Banc] and Delfin v. Court of Appeals, 121 Phil. 346, 349 (1965) [Per J. J.P. Bengzon, En Banc].
72 Rep. Act No. 9184 (2003), art. XVII, sec. 55.
73Rollo, p. 22.
74 RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, sec. 2.
75 496 Phil. 853 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
76 Id. at 868.
77Rollo, p. 32.
78 Id. at 18.
79 Id. at 16.
80 Id. at 18.
81 Rep. Act No. 8975 (2000), sec. 9.
82Rollo, p. 18.
83Hernandez v. NAPOCOR, 520 Phil. 38, 43 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division].
The same ruling was made regarding the prohibition in Presidential Decree No. 605 entitled Banning the Issuance by Courts of Preliminary Injunctions in Cases Involving Concessions, Licenses, and Other Permits Issued by Public Administrative Officials or Bodies for the Exploitation of Natural Resources. See Hon. Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc., 538 Phil. 348, 380 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division], quoting Datiles and Company v. Sucaldito, 264 Phil. 1094, 1102 (1990) [Per J. Padilla, Second Division] where this court held that the prohibition in Presidential Decree No. 605 "pertains to the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders by courts against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases, because to allow courts to judge these matters could disturb the smooth functioning of the administrative machinery[,] [b]ut on issues definitely outside of this dimension and involving questions of law, courts are not prevented by Presidential Decree No. 605 from exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts."
84 CONST., art. XII, sec. 6.
85 Rep. Act No. 8975 (2000), sec. 1.
86Republic v. Nolasco, 496 Phil. 853, 869-870 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
87Rollo, p. 288.
88 Id. at 289.
89 Id.
90 Id. at 290.
91 Id. at 301.
92 Id.
93 Id. at 301-302.
94Overseas Workers Welfare Administration v. Chavez, 551 Phil. 890, 911-912 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division]. See also Los Banos Rural Bank, Inc. v. Africa, 433 Phil. 930, 945 (2002) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division], citing Unciano Paramedical College, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100335, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 285, 294 [Per J. Nocon, Second Division]; Searth Commodities Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 64220, March 31, 1992, 207 SCRA 622, 630 [Per J. Gutierrez, Third Division], citing Rivas v. Securities and Exchange Commission, G.R. No. 53772, October 4, 1990, 190 SCRA 295, 305 [Per J. Padilla, Second Division].
95 Merriam-Webster Dictionary (visited March 23, 2015).
96 Merriam-Webster Dictionary (visited March 23, 2015).
97 Rep. Act No. 8975 (2000), sec. 1.