G.R. No.

145328 March 23, 2006

EDUARDO F. HERNANDEZ, MA. ENCARBACION R. EGA!"I, #AIME BANCO, #R., ENRI$UE
BEO, CARO! %IA"ANA, CAR FURER, %I%ENCIO &INIO, MICHAE BRIGG!, RO!A
CARAM, FAU!&O "RE'!ER, ROBER& (UA, GEORGE EE, GUIERMO UCHANGCO,
"E&ER DEE, UI!A MAR$UEZ, ANGEI&A IE!, #UAN CARO!, HOMER GO, AMADEO
%AENZUEA, EMIIO CHING, AN&ONIO CHAN, MURI !ABNANI, MARCO! ROCE!,
RA'MUNDO FEICIANO, NORMA GAFFUD, AF HO!&, OURDE! ". RO$UE, MANUE D',
RAU FERNANDEZ, %IC&ORIA &ENGCO, CHI MO CHENG, BARANGA' DA!MARI)A!, a*+
HON. FRANCI!CO B. IBA', petitioners
vs.
NA&IONA "O,ER COR"ORA&ION, respondent
D E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Although Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits any court ro! issuing in"unctions in cases involving
inrastructure pro"ects# the prohibition e$tends only to the issuance o in"unctions or restraining
orders against ad!inistrative acts in controversies involving acts or the e$ercise o discretion in
technical cases. On issues clearly outside this di!ension and involving %uestions o la&# this Court
declared that courts could not be prevented ro! e$ercising their po&er to restrain or prohibit
ad!inistrative acts.
1
In such cases# let the ha!!er all and let it all hard.
'ith health ris(s lin(ed to e$posure to electro!agnetic radiation as their battle cry# petitioners# all
residents o Das!ari)as *illage# are cla!oring or the reversal o the decision
+
dated , -ay +... o
the Court o Appeals in CA/0.1. SP No. 23845 as &ell as the resolution dated +3 Septe!ber +...#
denying their !otion or reconsideration.
6he assailed decision
,
o the Court o Appeals reversed the order o the 1egional 6rial Court o
-a(ati# issuing a &rit o preli!inary in"unction against respondent National Po&er Corporation
7NAPOCO18 to stay the latter ro! energi9ing and trans!itting high voltage electric current through
its cables erected ro! Sucat# Para)a%ue to Araneta Ave.# :ue9on City.
;ut# irst# the acts<
So!eti!e in 155=# NAPOCO1 began the construction o +5 decagon/shaped steel poles or to&ers
&ith a height o 2,.4 !eters to support overhead high tension cables in connection &ith its +,.
>ilovolt Sucat/Araneta/;alinta&a( Po&er 6rans!ission Pro"ect. Said trans!ission line passes
through the Sergio Os!e)a# Sr. ?igh&ay 7South Superhigh&ay8# the peri!eter o @ort ;oniacio#
and Das!ari)as *illage pro$i!ate to 6a!arind 1oad# &here petitionersA ho!es are.
Said pro"ect later proved to be petitionersA bane o e$istence.
Alar!ed by the sight o the to&ering steel to&ers# petitioners scoured the internet on the possible
adverse eects that such a structure could cause to their health and &ell/being. Petitioners got hold
o published articles and studies lin(ing the incidence o a ecund o illnesses to e$posure to
electro!agnetic ields. 6hese illnesses range ro! cancer to leu(e!ia.
Petitioners let no stones unturned to address their !alady. 6hey aired this gro&ing concern to the
NAPOCO1# &hich conducted a series o !eetings &ith the!.
NAPOCO1 received la( ro! 1epresentative @rancis Boseph 0. Escudero# &ho in his Privilege
Speech dated 1. -ay 1555# denounced the cavalier !anner &ith &hich Napocor ignored saety and
consultation re%uire!ents in the %uestioned pro"ect.
Petitioners brought their &oes to the attention o 1ep. Arnulo @uentebella# Chair!an o the ?ouse
Co!!ittee on Energy# &herein NAPOCO1 &as as(ed to shed light on the petitionersA proble!. In a
letter dated 8 Nove!ber 1555# Napocor President @ederico Puno stated that NAPOCO1 &as still in
the process o co!ing up &ith a C&in/&inC solution to the concerns o the Das!ari)as *illage and
@orbes Par( residents.
4
In a letter dated 1. August 1555 addressed to Congress!an Arnulo P. @uentebella# NAPOCO1As
President &rote<
'e have discussed the !atter &ith the Das!ari)as and @orbes residents and &e have co!e up &ith
our 748 options on ho& to address the proble!# to &it<
Option Cost
Option 1< 6ranser the line to Da&ton Avenue P 111.84 !illion
7proposal o Das!ari)asE@orbes8
Option +< -aintain 1+ !eters distance along P 33.=. !illion the village
Option ,< Construct an underground line P 48+... !illion
Option 4< 1eroute along C/2 and South Du9on P 1#.18.8, !illion
E$press&ay 7co!bination o overhead and underground8
2
Negotiations bet&een petitioners and the NAPOCO1 reached an i!passF# &ith petitioners vying or
the relocation o the trans!ission lines to @ort ;oniacio on one hand# and the NAPOCO1 insisting
on a 1+/!eter ease!ent &idening# on the other.
=
6hus# petitioners# on 5 -arch +... iled a Co!plaint
3
or Da!ages &ith Prayer or the Issuance o a
6e!porary 1estraining Order andEor a 'rit o Preli!inary In"unction against NAPOCO1. ?arping on
the ha9ardous eects o e$posure to electro!agnetic radiation to the health and saety to
the!selves and their a!ilies# petitioners# through the instant case# sought &hat they had ailed to
achieve through a!icable !eans &ith NAPOCO1 and prayed# inter alia# or da!ages and the
relocation o the trans!ission lines to Da&ton Avenue# @ort ;oniacio.
On 1, -arch +...# Budge @rancisco ;. Ibay issued an order
8
in Civil Case No. ../,2+# &hich
te!porarily restrained the respondent ro! energi9ing and trans!itting high voltage electric current
through the said pro"ect. 6he pertinent portion o the said order reads<
Acting on the plaintisA CGrgent O!nibus -otion#C it appearing that the sub"ect area &ill be energi9ed
by !idnight tonight based on a report ta(en ro! 1epresentative Bo(er P. Arroyo by plaintisA
counsel# so as not to render !oot and acade!ic the instant case# as prayed or# deendant National
Po&er Corporation is ordered to !aintain the status %uo andEor be en"oined ro! energi9ing and
trans!itting high voltage electric current through its cables or orty eight 7488 hours starting 4 oAcloc(
in the aternoon today and ending 4 oAcloc( in the aternoon o 12 -arch +....
5
;y order
1.
o 12 -arch +...# the trial court e$tended the restraining order or 18 !ore days.
NAPOCO1 iled a Petition or Certiorari &ith Prayer or 6e!porary 1estraining Order and Preli!inary
In"unction &ith the Court o Appeals assailing the above order by the trial court. Alluding to
Presidential Decree No. 1818 715818# "Prohibiting Courts from Issuing Restraining Orders or
Preliminary Injunctions in Cases Involving Infrastructure and Natural Resource Development
Projects of, and Public tilities Operated by, the !overnment,C particularly Sec. 1# NAPOCO1
stal&artly sought the dis!issal o the case on the ground o lac( "urisdiction. Presidential Decree No.
1818 provides<
Section 1. No Court in the Philippines shall have "urisdiction to issue any restraining order#
preli!inary in"unction or preli!inary !andatory in"unction in any case# dispute# or controversy
involving an inrastructure pro"ect# or a !ining# ishery# orest or other natural resource develop!ent
pro"ect o the govern!ent# or any public utility operated by the govern!ent# including a!ong other
public utilities or transport o the goods or co!!odities# stevedoring and arrastre contracts# to
prohibit any person or persons# entity or govern!ent oicial ro! proceeding &ith or continuing the
e$ecution or i!ple!entation o any such pro"ect# or the operation o such public utility or pursuing
any la&ul activity necessary or such e$ecution# i!ple!entation or operation.
In the interregnu!# by order dated , April +...# the trial court ordered the issuance o a &rit o
preli!inary in"unction against NAPOCO1.
11
6he trial court articulated that an in"unction &as
necessary to stay respondent NAPOCO1As activation o its po&er lines due to the possible health
ris(s posed to the petitioners. Asserting its "urisdiction over the case# the trial court &as o the vie&
that Presidential Decree No. 1818 and "urisprudence proscribing in"unctions against inrastructure
pro"ects do not ind application in the case at bar because o the health ris(s involved.
6he trial court# thus# en"oined the NAPOCO1 ro! urther preparing and installing high voltage
cables to the steel pylons erected near petitionersA ho!es and ro! energi9ing and trans!itting high
voltage electric current through said cables &hile the case is pending inal ad"udication# upon posting
o the bond a!ounting to P2#...#...... e$ecuted to the eect that petitioners &ill pay all the
da!ages the NAPOCO1 !ay sustain by reason o the in"unction i the Court should inally decide
that the petitioners are not entitled thereto.
1+
In light o the oregoing order o the trial court# the petition &hich NAPOCO1 iled &ith the Court o
Appeals &as later a!ended to include the prayer or the nulliication and in"unction o the Order
dated , April +... o the trial court.
In the challenged decision o , -ay +...# the Court o Appeals reversed the trial courtAs order# &ith
the ollo&ing allo<
'?E1E@O1E# pre!ises considered# the instant petition or certiorari is hereby 01AN6ED. 6he
assailed orders o the respondent court# dated -arch 1,# +... and April ,# +...# are hereby
1E*E1SED and SE6 ASIDE.
1,
In the Court o AppealsA rationale# the proscription on in"unctions against inrastructure pro"ects o the
govern!ent is clearly !andated by the above/%uoted Section 1 o Presidential Decree No. 1818# as
reiterated by the Supre!e Court in its Circulars No. +/51 and No. 1,/5,# dated 12 -arch 1551 and 2
-arch 155,# respectively.
As their !otion or reconsideration &as !et &ith si!ilar lac( o success# petitioners# in a last atte!pt
at vindication# iled the present petition or revie& on the ollo&ing argu!ents<
I.
6e!porary restraining orders and preli!inary in"unctions &ere purposely designed to address
!atters o e$tre!e urgency &here there is probability o grave in"ustice and irreparable in"ury.
14
II.
6he rule on preli!inary in"unction !erely re%uires that unless restrained# the act co!plained o &ill
probably &or( in"ustice to the applicant or probably violate his rights and tends to render the
"udg!ent ineectual.
12
7E!phasis in the original.8
@unda!ental to the resolution o the instant petition is the issue o &hether or not the trial court !ay
issue a te!porary restraining order and preli!inary in"unction to en"oin the construction and
operation o the +5 decagon/shaped steel poles or to&ers by the NAPOCO1# not&ithstanding
Presidential Decree No. 1818.
Petitioners clutch on their stand that Presidential Decree No. 1818 could not be construed to apply to
cases o e$tre!e urgency as in the present case &hen no less than the rights o the petitioners to
health and saety hangs on the balance.
'e ind the petition to be i!bued &ith !erit.
Presidential Decree No. 1818 &as issued on 1= Banuary 1581# prohibiting "udges ro! issuing
restraining orders against govern!ent inrastructure pro"ects. In part# the decree says# CNo court in
the Philippines shall have "urisdiction to issue any restraining order# preli!inary in"unction or
preli!inary order# preli!inary !andatory in"unction in any case, dispute or controversy involving an
infrastructure project.C 1eali9ing the i!portance o this decree# this 6ribunal had issued dierent
circulars to i!ple!ent this particular la&.
Presidential Decree No. 1818
1=
prohibits courts ro! issuing in"unctions against govern!ent
inrastructure pro"ects. In !arcia v" #urgos#
13
Presidential Decree No. 1818 &as held to prohibit
courts ro! issuing an in"unction against any inrastructure pro"ect in order not to disrupt or ha!per
the pursuit o essential govern!ent pro"ects or rustrate the econo!ic develop!ent eort o the
nation.
'hile its sole provision &ould appear to enco!pass all cases involving the i!ple!entation o
pro"ects and contracts on inrastructure# natural resource develop!ent and public utilities# this rule#
ho&ever# is not absolute as there are actually instances &hen Presidential Decree No. 1818 should
not ind application. In a spate o cases# this Court declared that although Presidential Decree No.
1818 prohibits any court ro! issuing in"unctions in cases involving inrastructure pro"ects# the
prohibition e$tends only to the issuance o in"unctions or restraining orders against ad!inistrative
acts in controversies involving acts or the e$ercise o discretion in technical cases. On issues clearly
outside this di!ension and involving %uestions o la&# this Court declared that courts could not be
prevented ro! e$ercising their po&er to restrain or prohibit ad!inistrative acts.
18
In the case at bar# petitioners sought the issuance o a preli!inary in"unction on the ground that the
NAPOCO1 Pro"ect i!pinged on their right to health as enshrined in Article II# Section 12 o the 1583
Constitution# &hich provides<
Sec. 12. 6he State shall protect and pro!ote the right to health o the people and instill
consciousness a!ong the!.
6o boot# petitioners# !oreover# harp on respondentAs ailure to conduct prior consultation &ith the!#
as the co!!unity aected by the pro"ect# in star( violation o Section +3 o the Docal 0overn!ent
Code &hich provides< Cno pro"ect or progra! shall be i!ple!ented by govern!ent authorities unless
the consultations !entioned are co!plied &ith# and prior approval o the $anggunian concerned is
observed.C
@ro! the oregoing# &hether there is a violation o petitionersA constitutionally protected right to
health and &hether respondent NAPOCO1 had indeed violated the Docal 0overn!ent Code
provision on prior consultation &ith the aected co!!unities are veritable %uestions o la& that
invested the trial court &ith "urisdiction to issue a 61O and subse%uently# a preli!inary in"unction. As
such# these %uestions o la& divest the case ro! the protective !antle o Presidential Decree No.
1818.
-oreover# the issuance by the trial court o a preli!inary in"unction inds legal support in Section , o
1ule 28 o the 1ules o Court &hich provides<
Sec. ,. !rounds for issuance of preliminary injunction" % A preli!inary in"unction !ay be granted
&hen it is established<
7a8 6hat the applicant is entitled to the relie de!anded# and the &hole or part o such relie
consists in restraining the co!!ission or continuance o the act or acts co!plained o# or in
re%uiring the peror!ance o an act or acts# either or a li!ited period or perpetuallyH
7b8 6hat the co!!ission# continuance or non/peror!ance o the act or acts co!plained o
during the litigation &ould probably &or( in"ustice to the applicantH or
7c8 6hat a party# court# agency or a person is doing# threatening# or is atte!pting to do# or is
procuring or suering to be done# so!e act or acts probably in violation o the rights o the
applicant respecting the sub"ect o the action or proceeding# and tending to render the
"udg!ent ineectual. 7,a8 7E!phasis supplied.8
6he rule on preli!inary in"unction !erely re%uires that unless restrained# the act co!plained o &ill
probably violate his rights and tend to render the "udg!ent ineectual.
?ere# there is ade%uate evidence on record to "ustiy the conclusion that the pro"ect o NAPOCO1
probably i!perils the health and saety o the petitioners so as to "ustiy the issuance by the trial
court o a &rit o preli!inary in"unction.
Petitioners adduced in evidence copies o studies lin(ing the incidence o illnesses such as cancer
and leu(e!ia to e$posure to electro!agnetic ields. 6he records bear out# to boot# a copy o a
brochure o NAPOCO1 regarding its :ue9on Po&er Pro"ect ro! &hich &ill be supplying NAPOCO1
&ith the po&er &hich &ill pass through the to&ers sub"ect o the controversy. 6he NAPOCO1
brochure provides that because o the danger conco!itant &ith high voltage po&er# Philippine la&s
!andate that the po&er lines should be located &ithin sae distances ro! residences. And the
:ue9on Po&er Pro"ect !andates an ease!ent o +. !eters to the right and +. !eters to the let
&hich alls short o the 1+/!eter ease!ent that NAPOCO1 &as proposing to petitioners.
Di(e&ise on record# are copies o letters o Napocor President @ederico Puno to 1ep. Arnulo
@uentebella# Chair!an o the ?ouse Co!!ittee on Energy# stating updates on the negotiations
being underta(en by the NAPOCO1 and the Das!ari)as *illage and @orbes Par( residents. Also on
ile is the Privilege Speech dated 1. -ay 1555 o 1epresentative @rancis Boseph 0. Escudero# &ho
denounced the cavalier !anner &ith &hich Napocor ignored saety and consultation re%uire!ents in
the %uestioned pro"ect.
'ith a !e!ber o Congress denouncing the sub"ect pro"ect o NAPOCO1 because o the very sa!e
health and saety ills that petitioners no& he& to in this petition# and &ith docu!ents on record to
sho& that NAPOCO1 !ade representations to petitioners that they are loo(ing into the possibility o
relocating the pro"ect# added to the act that there had been series o negotiations and !eetings
bet&een petitioners and NAPOCO1 as &ell as related agencies# there is a!ple indicia to suggest to
the !ind o the court that the health concerns o the petitioners are# at the very least# ar ro!
i!aginary.
Indeed# i there is no cause or concern# NAPOCO1 &ould not have been stirred to co!e up &ith
options to address the &oes o petitioners# nor &ould Congress!an Escudero have ired a&ay those
strong &ords o censure# assailing &hat to Congress!an Escudero s!ac(s o a Ccavalier !anner by
&hich the NAPOCO1 has responded to earnest pleas or a revie& o its practice o installing
!assive pylons supporting high tension cables in densely populated areas.C
15
6rue# the issue o &hether or not the trans!ission lines are sae is essentially evidentiary in nature#
and pertains to the very !erits o the action belo&. In act# petitioners recogni9e that the
conclusiveness o their lie# health and saety concerns still needs to be proved in the !ain case
belo& and they are prepared to do so especially in the light o so!e studies cited by respondent that
yield contrary results in a disputed sub"ect. Despite the partiesA conlicting results o studies !ade on
the issue# the possibility that the e$posure to electro!agnetic radiation causes cancer and other
disorders is still# indeed# &ithin the real! o scientiic scale o probability.
E%ually i!portant# &e ta(e "udicial notice that the area alluded to as location o the NAPOCO1
pro"ect is a ragile 9one being pro$i!ate to local earth%ua(e aults# particularly the -ari(ina ault#
a!ong other 9ones. 6his is not to !ention the ris(s o alling structures caused by (iller tornadoes
and super typhoons# the Philippines# especially Central Du9on# being situated along the typhoon belt.
-oreover# the Docal 0overn!ent Code# re%uires conerence &ith the aected co!!unities o a
govern!ent pro"ect. NAPOCO1# palpably# !ade a shortcut to this re%uire!ent. In act# there
appears a lac( o e$haustive easibility studies on NAPOCO1As part beore !a(ing a go &ith the
pro"ect on handH other&ise# it should have anticipated the legal labyrinth it is no& caught in.
6hese are acts# &hich the trial court could not ignore# and or! as suicient basis to engender the
cloud o doubt that the NAPOCO1 pro"ect could# indeed# endanger the lives o the petitioners. A
preli!inary in"unction is li(e&ise "ustiied prior to a inal deter!ination o the issues o &hether or not
NAPOCO1 ignored saety and consultation re%uire!ents in the %uestioned pro"ect. Indeed# the court
could# nay .ho/0+# grant the &rit o preli!inary in"unction i the purpose o the other party is to shield
a &rongdoing. A ruling to the contrary &ould a!ount to an erosion o "udicial discretion.
Ater all# or a &rit o preli!inary in"unction to be issued# the 1ules do not re%uire that the act
co!plained o be in violation o the rights o the applicant. Indeed# &hat the 1ules re%uire is that the
act co!plained o be 1ro2a203 in violation o the rights o the applicant. Gnder the 1ules o Court#
probability is enough basis or in"unction to issue as a provisional re!edy# &hich is dierent ro!
in"unction as a !ain action &here one needs to establish absolute certainty as basis or a inal and
per!anent in"unction.
Pending the inal deter!ination o the trial court on the !ain case or da!ages# o &hether or not the
NAPOCO1 Pro"ect inringes on petitionersA substantive right to health and pending deter!ination o
the %uestion o &hether there &as non/observance o the prior/consultation proviso under the Docal
0overn!ent Code# it is prudent to preserve the status %uo. In Phil. Ports Authority v. Cipres
Stevedoring I Arrastre# Inc.#
+.
&e held<
A preli!inary in"unction is an order granted at any stage o an action prior to "udg!ent o inal order#
re%uiring a party# court# agency# or person to rerain ro! a particular act or acts. It is a preservative
re!edy to ensure the protection o a partyAs substantive rights or interests pending the inal
"udg!ent in the principal action. A plea or an in"unctive &rit lies upon the e$istence o a clai!ed
e!ergency or e$traordinary situation &hich should be avoided or other&ise# the outco!e o a
litigation &ould be useless as ar as the party applying or the &rit is concerned.
At ti!es reerred to as the CStrong Ar! o E%uity#C &e have consistently ruled that there is no po&er
the e$ercise o &hich is !ore delicate and &hich calls or greater circu!spection than the issuance
o an in"unction. It should only be e$tended in cases o great in"ury &here courts o la& cannot aord
an ade%uate or co!!ensurate re!edy in da!agesH Cin cases o e$tre!e urgencyH &here the right is
very clearH &here considerations o relative inconvenience bear strongly in co!plainantAs avorH
&here there is a &illul and unla&ul invasion o plaintiAs right against his protest and re!onstrance#
the in"ury being a continuing one# and &here the eect o the !andatory in"unction is rather to
reestablish and !aintain a pree$isting continuing relation bet&een the parties# recently and
arbitrarily interrupted by the deendant# than to establish a ne& relation.C 7E!phasis supplied.8
'hat is !ore# contrary to respondentsA assertion# there is not a single syllable in the circulars issued
by this Court en"oining the observance o Presidential Decree No. 1818# &hich altogether and
absolutely# ties the hands o the courts ro! issuing a &rit o preli!inary in"unction. 'hat Circular +/
51
+1
dated 12 -arch 1551 see(s to en"oin is the indiscri!inate issuance o court in"unctions. 6he
sa!e holds or Circular 1,/5,
++
dated 2 -arch 155, and Circular =8/54.
+,
And# in Circular No. 3/55#
"udges are en"oined to observe ut!ost caution# prudence and "udiciousness in the issuance o
te!porary restraining order and in the grant o &rits o preli!inary in"unction to avoid any suspicion
that its issuance or grant &as or consideration other than the strict !erits o the case.
+4
6here is not a hint ro! the oregoing circulars suggesting an /*2r4+05+ prohibition against the
issuance o te!porary restraining orders or preli!inary in"unctions.
In su!# &hat Presidential Decree No. 1818 ai!s to avert is the unti!ely rustration o govern!ent
inrastructure pro"ects# particularly by provisional re!edies# to the detri!ent o the greater good by
disrupting the pursuit o essential govern!ent pro"ects or rustrate the econo!ic develop!ent eort
o the nation. Presidential Decree No. 1818# ho&ever# &as not !eant to be a blan(et prohibition so
as to disregard the unda!ental right to health# saety and &ell/being o a co!!unity guaranteed by
the unda!ental la& o the land.
+2
Dest &e be !isconstrued# this decision does not under!ine the purpose o the NAPOCO1 pro"ect
&hich is ai!ed to&ards the co!!on good o the people. ;ut# is the pro!otion o the general &elare
at loggerheads &ith the preservation o the rule o la&J 'e sub!it that it is not.
+=
In the present case# the ar/reaching irreversible eects to hu!an saety should be the pri!ordial
concerns over presu!ed econo!ic beneits per se as alleged by the NAPOCO1.
Not too long ago# the Court# in -etropolitan -anila Develop!ent Authority 7--DA8 v. ;el/Air *illage
Association# Inc.#
+3
upheld the validity o the &rit o preli!inary in"unction issued by the Court o
Appeals en"oining the i!ple!entation o the -etropolitan -anila Develop!ent AuthorityAs proposed
action o opening o the Neptune Street to public vehicular traic. 'e &ere categorical /
Not inre%uently# the govern!ent is te!pted to ta(e legal shortcuts to solve urgent proble!s o the
people. ;ut even &hen govern!ent is ar!ed &ith the best o intention# &e cannot allo& it to run
roughshod over the rule o la&. Again# &e let the ha!!er all and all hard on the illegal atte!pt o
the --DA to open or public use a private road in a private subdivision. 'hile &e hold that the
general &elare should be pro!oted# &e stress that it should not be achieved at the e$pense o the
rule o la&.
+8
In hindsight# i# ater trial# it turns out that the health/related ears that petitioners cleave on to have
ade%uate conir!ation in act and in la&# the %uestioned pro"ect o NAPOCO1 then suers ro! a
paucity o purpose# no !atter ho& noble the purpose !ay be. @or &hat use &ill !oderni9ation serve
i it proves to be a scourge on an individualAs unda!ental right# not "ust to health and saety# but#
ostensibly# to lie preservation itsel# in all o its desired %ualityJ
,HEREFORE# the petition is granted. 6he decision dated , -ay +... o the Court o Appeals in
CA/0.1. SP No. 23845 is 1E*E1SED as &ell as the resolution dated +3 Septe!ber +.... 6he
Order dated , April +... o the 1egional 6rial Court o -a(ati in Civil Case No. ../,2+ is hereby
1EINS6A6ED. No pronounce!ent as to costs
SO O1DE1ED.