OCA CIRCULAR NO.

38 -2014

ALL JUDGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND

LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT : J U D I C I O U S I M P L E M E N TAT I O N O F COURT

ISSUANCES CONCERNING T H E B A N ON
THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDERS OR WRITS OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS I N V O LV I N G
GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

The Department of Transportation and Communication and

Department of Public Works and Highways thru the Honorable
Joseph Emilio Aguinaldo Abaya and Honorable Rogelio L. Singson,
r e s p e c t i v e l y, h a v e i n v i t e d t h e a t t e n L i o n o f t h e C o u r t r e g a r d i n g t h e
ongoing several urgent projects that involve right-of-way issues.
Corollary to these undertakings, they requested that, once again,
all judges of the trial courts must be reminded of the judicious
implementation of administrative issuances relative to the
prohibition on the issuance of temporary restraining orders (TROs)
and writs of preliminary injunction involving such government
infrastrucL%tr e projects.

In Administrative Circular No. 7-99 dated June 25, 1999,

the Court enjoined judges to exercise utmost caution, prudence,
and judiciousness in the issuance of TROs and writs of
preliminary injunction. Pertinent portions of the said issuance is
hereby quoted as follows:
 Despite well-entrenched jurisprudence and
circulars regarding exercise of judiciousness and care in
the issuance of temporary restraining orders (TRO) or
grant 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
i n fl u e n c e d t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e T R O o r t h e w r i t o f
preliminary injunction.

No less than the President of the Philippines has

requested this Court to issue a circular reminding
j u d g e s t o r e s p e c t P. D . N o . 1 8 1 8 , w h i c h p r o h i b i t s t h e
issuance of TROs in cases involving implementation of
g o v e r n m e n t i n f r a s t r u c t u r e p r o j e c t s . T h e O f fi c e o f t h e
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.

Judqes are thus enjoined to observe utmost

caution, prudence and judiciousness in the
issuance of" TRO and in the qrant oi" writs Of
preliminar~ iniunction to avoid an~ suspicion that
its issuance or qrant was for consideration other
than the strict merits of the case,

J u d g e s s h o u l d b e a r i n m i n d t h a t i n G a r c i a v.
Burgos (291 SCRA 546, 571-572 [1998]), this Court
explicitly stated:

S e c t i o n 1 o f P. D . 1 8 1 8 d i s t i n c t l y p r o v i d e s t h a t
"ln]o court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to
i s s u e a n y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r, p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n , o r
preliminary mandatory injunction in any case, dispute,
or controversy involving an infrastructure project x x x
of the government, x x x to prohibit amy person or
p e r s o n s , e n t i t y o r g o v e r n m e n t o f fi c i a l f r o m p r o c e e d i n g
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 injunction 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
s u b j e c t " S t r i c t O b s e r v a n c e o f S e c t i o n 1 o f P. D . 1 8 1 8
 Envisioned by Circular No. 13-93 dated March 5, 1993,
and Circular No. 20-92 dated March 24, 1992."

F i n a l l y, j u d g e s s h o u l d n e v e r f o r g e t w h a t t h e C o u r t
c a t e g o r i c a l l y d e c l a r e d i n M i n o s v. N a t i v i d a d ( 2 1 3 S C R A
7 3 4 , 7 4 2 [ i 9 9 2 ] ) t h a t " [ b ] y e x p r e s s p r o v i s i o n o f l a w,
amply supported by well-settled jurisprudence, the
Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over
seizure and forfeiture proceedings, and regular courts
c a n n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t h h i s e x e r c i s e t h e r e o f o r s t i fl e o r p u t
it to naught. (Emphasis supplied)

S u b s e q u e n t l y, t h e s a m e p r o s c r i p t i o n o n t h e i s s u a n c e o f T R O s
and writs of preliminary injunction was further reiterated in
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C i r c u l a r N o . 11 - 2 0 0 0 d a t e d N o v e m b e r 1 3 ,
2000, in view of the enactment of Republic Act No. 8975, also
known as "An Act to Ensure the Expeditious Implementation and
Completion of Government Infrastructure Projects by Prohibiting
L o w e r C o u r t s f r o m I s s u i n g Te m p o r a r y R e s t r a i n i n g O r d e r s ,
Preliminary Injunctions or Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions,
Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof, and for Other
Purposes." Section 3 of the Act quoted therein reads as follows:

S E C . 3 . P r o h i b i t i o n o n t h e I s s u a n c e o f Te m p o r a r y
Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injur~ctions and
Preliminary Mandatory Injurmtfons. - No Court, except the
Supreme Court, shall issue any temporary restraining
o r d e r, p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n o r p r e l i m i n a r y m a n d a t o r y
injunction against the government, or any of its
s u b d i v i s i o n s , o f fi c i a l s o r a n y p e r s o n o r e n t i t y , w h e t h e r
public or private, acting under the government's
direction, to restrain, prohibit or compel the following
acts:

(a} A c q u i s i t i o n , c l e a r a n c e a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e
right-of-way and/or site or location of any
national government project;
{b) B i d d i n g o r a w a r d i n g o f c o n t r a c t / p r o j e c t o f t h e
n a t i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t a s d e fi n e d u n d e r S e c t i o n
2 hereof;
(c) C o m m e n c e m e n t , p r o s e c u t i o n , e x e c u t i o n , i m p l e -
mentation, operation of any such contract or
project;
(d) T e r m i n a t i o n o r r e s c i s s i o n o f a n y s u c h
contact/project; and
 The undertaking or authorization of any other
lawful activity necessary for such
contract/project.

The prohibition shall apply in all cases, disputes

o r c o n t r o v e r s i e s i n s t i t u t e d b y a p r i v a t e p a r t y, i n c l u d i n g
b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o c a s e s fi l e d b y b i d d e r s o r t h o s e
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
i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y w i l l a r i s e . T h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l fi l e a
b o n d , i n a n a m o u n t t o b e fi x e d b y t h e c o u r t , w h i c h b o n d
shall accrue in favor of the government if the court
s h o u l d fi n a l l y d e c i d e t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t w a s n o t e n t i t l e d
to the relief sought.

I f a f t e r d u e h e a r i n g t h e c o u r t fi n d s t h a t t h e a w a r d
o f t h e c o n t r a c t i s n u l l a n d v o i d , t h e c o u r t m a y, i f
appropriate under the circumstances, award the
c o n t r a c t t o t h e q u a l i fi e d a n d w i n n i n g b i d d e r o r o r d e r a
rebidding of the same, without prejudice to any liability
that the guilty party may incur under existing laws.

H o w e v e r, d u e t o t h e n e g a t i v e r e p o r t s t h a t r e a c h e d t h e C o u r t
not only on the issuance of TROs or writs of preliminary injunction
in cases involving government projects but also on the complaints
about delays in the disposition of such cases after a TRO is
converted into a writ of preliminary injunction, the Court issued
Administrative Circular No. 62-2002 dated November 20,
2002. It reminded all trial court judges to strictly comply with
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C i r c u l a r N o s . 7 - 9 9 a n d 11 - 2 0 0 0 , a n d d i r e c t e d t h e m
to submit the reports on the status of TROs or writs of preliminary
injunction issued in various cases.

L a s t l y , t h e C o u r t t h r o u g h t h e O f fi c e o f t h e C o u r t
Administrator issued OCA Circular No. 79-2003 dated June 12,
2003. The trial court judges are once again cautioned concerning
the improvident or irregular issuance of TROs or the grant of writs
of preliminary injunction. They are reminded to be aware of the
cases where the issuance of temporary restraJ2aing order or the
g r a n t o f p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n i s p r o p e r, a s w e l l a s t h e c a s e s
where they are not including cases concerning government
infrastructure projects.
 In view of all the foregoing, all concerned are hereby
E X H O R T E D t o C O N T I N U O U S LY O B S E RV E a n d I M P L E M E N T t h e
abovementioned administrative issuances of the Court to ensure
that all cases involving government infrastructure projects can be
resolved in a speedy and timely manner.

Strict compliance is hereby enjoined

Mazehl2,2014

A S P. M A R Q U E Z
Administrator

e~C/~/~£103.04.14/i~su ~nc~oro fTl~Oemn d WPls.doe