G.R. No. 167290 - Hermano Oil Manufacturing and Sugar Corp. vs. Toll Regulatory Board

Petitioner, Hermano Oil Manufacturing & Sugar Corporation, owned a parcel of land near the Sta. Rita Exit of the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX), covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-134222.
The property was bounded by an access fence along the NLEX that blocked petitioner’s ingress and egress.

On September 7, 2001, petitioner requested the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) for an easement of right of way to access NLEX.
The TRB denied the request on September 26, 2001, citing that the request violated Section 7 of Republic Act No. 2000 (Limited Access Highway Act) and could adversely affect scheduled rehabilitation, operational safety, and traffic.

Petitioner filed a complaint against TRB and Executive Director Engr. Jaime S. Dumlao Jr. in Regional Trial Court (RTC), amended to include Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) and Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
Petitioner claimed deprivation of use and enjoyment of property, demanded issuance of preliminary injunction to prevent deprivation of property access, sought right of way grant, declared condemnation null and void, and prays for damages and attorney’s fees.

Defendants, through Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), moved to dismiss on grounds of:

Lack of jurisdiction.
No cause of action (plaintiff not real party in interest, claim inconsistent with RA 2000, immunity of the state).
Lack of requisites for injunctive relief.
Inappropriate remedy sought; proper remedy is certiorari under Rule 65.

The suit was against the State without consent due to claims for just compensation.
Political questions and sovereign immunity barred injunctive relief.
PD No. 1818 and RA No. 8975 prohibit issuance of TRO or injunction against government infrastructure projects.

NLEX is a limited access highway, and petitioner had no basis to claim an easement.
Petitioner’s predecessors allowed property isolation since the highway and fence pre-existed the purchase.
Petitioner had alternative access via a road network.
No contract existed to support specific performance claim.
Government agencies and PNCC, performing governmental functions, enjoy immunity; PNCC’s immunity affirmed as related to functions necessary for government.
Issues of expropriation not raised in trial court.

Whether the dismissal of Civil Case No. 37-M-2002 was proper.
Whether the petitioner was deprived of property without due process and equal protection, warranting an easement or compensation.
Whether the respondents, especially PNCC, enjoyed immunity from suit.
Whether a court below may issue injunctions restraining government infrastructure projects such as access fences on limited access highways.