8/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 208

VOL. 208, APRIL 14, 1992 125

Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on
Human Rights

*
G.R. No. 101476. April 14, 1992.

EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY, petitioner,

vs. THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, TERESITA
VALLES, LORETO ALEDIA and PEDRO ORDOÑEZ,
respondents.

Political Law; Constitutional Law; Commission on Human

Rights; The Commission on Human Rights is a creation of the
Constitution although it is not on the same level as the
Constitutional Commission. In essence, the Commission’s power is
only investigative.—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

_____________

* EN BANC.

126

126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on Human

Rights

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. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
Nos. 76828-32, 28 January 1991; Bacalso vs. Ramolete, G.R. No.
L-22488, 26 October 1967, 21 SCRA 519). It is never derived by
implication. (Garcia, et al. vs. De Jesus, et al., G.R. No. 88158;
Tobon Uy vs. Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. Nos. 97108-09,
March 4, 1992.)

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c760e008b60c65d26003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
8/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 208

Remedial Law; Courts; Jurisdiction; A preliminary injunction

is an order granted at any stage of an action prior to final
judgment, requiring a person to refrain from a particular act. It
may be granted by the judge of any court in which the action is
pending, or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals or of the Supreme
Court.—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.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION for certiorari and prohibition to

review the orders of the Commission on Human Rights.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Government Corporate Counsel for petitioner.
     Marvic M.V.F. Leonen for respondents Valles, Aledia
and Ordoñez.

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
127

VOL. 208, APRIL 14, 1992 127

Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on
Human Rights

purposes of development, 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 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
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c760e008b60c65d26003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
8/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 208

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 (Pinagsamahang 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!”
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

128

128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on
Human Rights

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.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c760e008b60c65d26003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
8/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 208

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:

“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 complainantsfarmers
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; italics 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

129

VOL. 208, APRIL 14, 1992 129

Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on
Human Rights

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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c760e008b60c65d26003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
8/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 208

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:

“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. (Italics 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.)
130

130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on
Human Rights

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. vs. 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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c760e008b60c65d26003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
8/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 208

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 definitively, subject to such appeals or
modes of review as may be provided by law. This function, to
repeat, the Commission does not have.
“xxx     xxx     xxx.
“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.)

131

VOL. 208, APRIL 14, 1992 131

Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on
Human Rights

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. vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. Nos. 76828-32, 28 January 1991; Bacalso vs.
Ramolete, G.R. No. L-22488, 26 October 1967, 21 SCRA
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c760e008b60c65d26003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
8/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 208

519). It is never derived by implication. (Garcia, et al. vs.

De Jesus, et al., G.R. No. 88158; Tobon Uy vs. Commission
on Elections, 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.
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
132

132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on
Human Rights

     Nocon, JJ., concur.

     Feliciano and Bellosillo, JJ., On leave.
Padilla, J., See dissenting opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION

PADILLA, J.:

I dissent for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in

“Hon. Isidro Cariño, et al. vs. Commission on Human
Rights, et al.,” G.R. No. 96681, 2 December 1991. In
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c760e008b60c65d26003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
8/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 208

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 cases 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).
Petition granted; orders annulled and set aside.

Note.—A regular court (RTC) has jurisdiction to

determine the issue of novelty or prior use when a patent is
sought to be enforced, for the purpose of deciding whether
or not to issue a writ of preliminary injunction. (Maguan
vs. Court of Appeals, 146 SCRA 107.)

——o0o——

133

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c760e008b60c65d26003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8