Export Processing Zone Authority vs.
Commission on Human Rights
G.R. No. 101476
April 14, 1992
FACTS:
❖ P.D. 1980 - reserved and designated certain parcels of land in Rosario and General Trias, Cavite,
as the “Cavite Export Processing Zone” (CEPZ). The area was divided into Phases I to IV.
❖ A parcel in Phase IV was bought by the Filoil Refinery Corporation, formerly Filoil Industrial
Estate, Inc. The same parcel was later sold by Filoil to petitioner 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 paid a P10,000-financial assistance to
those who accepted the same and signed quitclaims. Among them were PRs Teresita Valles and
Alfredo Aledia, father of PR Loreto Aledia.
❖ 10 years later, PRs Teresita Valles, Loreto Aledia and Pedro Ordoñez filed in the respondent
Commission on Human Rights (CHR) a joint complaint, praying for “justice and other reliefs and
remedies.”
❖ The CHR conducted an investigation of the complaint. 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!”
❖ 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.
❖ 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.
❖ Two weeks later, the same group accompanied by men of Governor Remulla, again bulldozed
the area. They allegedly handcuffed PR Teresita Valles, pointed their firearms at the other
respondents, and fired a shot in the air.
❖ CHR issued another injunction Order, reiterating the first order and expanded it to include the
Secretary of Public Works and Highways, the contractors, and their subordinates.
❖ Petitioner 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. CHR denied the motion.
❖ Petitioner, through the Government Corporate Counsel, filed in the SC 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.
❖ SC issued a temporary restraining order, ordering the CHR to cease and desist from enforcing
and/or implementing the questioned injunction orders.
❖ 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.”
ISSUE:
Whether or not CHR has 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?
RULING:
No. In “Hon. Isidro Cariño, et al. vs. Commission on Human Rights, et al.,” G.R. No. 96681, December 2,
1991, the SC held that the CHR is not a court of justice nor even a quasi-judicial body. 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.”
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.
