ADMINISTRATIVE
CIRCULAR NO. 7-99
TO: ALL
JUDGES
OF LOWER COURTS
SUBJECT:
EXERCISE OF UTMOST CAUTION, PRUDENCE AND JUDICIOUSNESS IN ISSUANCE OF
TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDERS AND WRITS OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS.
Despite
well-entrenched
jurisprudence and circulars regarding exercise of judiciousness and
care
in the issuance of temporary restraining orders [TRO] or grant of writs
of preliminary injunction, reports or complaints on abuses committed by
trial judges in connection therewith persist. Some even intimated that
irregularities, including corruption, might have influenced the
issuance
of the TRO or the writ or preliminary injunction.cralaw:red
No less
than the
President of the Philippines has requested this Court to issue a
Circular
reminding judges to respect P. D. No. 1818 which prohibits the issuance
of TROs in cases involving implementation of government infrastructure
projects. The Office of the President has likewise brought to the
attention
of this Court, orders of judges releasing imported articles under
seizure
and forfeiture proceedings by the Bureau of Customs.cralaw:red
Judges are
thus enjoined
to observe utmost caution, prudence and judiciousness in the issuance
of
TRO and in the grant of writs of preliminary injunction to avoid any
suspicion
that its issuance or grant was for consideration other than the strict
merits of the case.cralaw:red
Judges
should bear
in mind that in Garcia v. Burgos (291 SCRA 546, 571-572
[1998]),
this Court explicitly stated:chanrobles virtual law library
Section 1
of P.
D. 1818 distinctly provides that "(n)o 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 x x x of the
government, x x x to prohibit any person or
persons,
entity or
government official from proceeding with, or continuing the execution
or
implementation of any such project,x x x or
pursuing
any lawful activity necessary for such execution, implementation or
operation."
At the risk of being repetitious, We stress that the foregoing
statutory
provision expressly deprives courts of jurisdiction to issue injunctive
writs against the implementation or execution of an infrastructure
project.Their
attention is further
invited to Circular No. 68-94 issued on 3 November 1994 by the OCA OIC
Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez, on the subject "Strict
Observance of Section 1 of P. D. 1818 Envisioned by Circular No. 13-93
dated March 5, 1993 and Circular No. 20-92 dated March 24, 1992."
Finally,
judges should
never forget what the Court categorically declared in Mison v.
Natividad
(213 SCRA 734, 742 [1992]) that "(b)y express provision of law, amply
supported
by well-settled jurisprudence, the Collector of Customs has exclusive
jurisdiction
over seizure and forfeiture proceedings and regular courts cannot
interfere
with his exercise thereof or stifle or put it to naught."
The Office
of the
Court Administrator shall see to it that this Circular is immediately
disseminated
and shall monitor implementation thereof.cralaw:red
Strict
observance
and compliance of this Circular is hereby enjoined.cralaw:red
25 June
1999.
[Sgd.]
HILARIO
G. DAVIDE, JR.Chief
Justice |