G.R. No. 214073 - Bicol Medical Center vs. Botor

Case Summary (G.R. No. 214073)

Factual Background

Bicol Medical Center evolved from the Camarines Sur Provincial Hospital and its successors and occupied land covered by TCT No. 13693, a donation from the Camarines Sur Provincial Government to the Ministry of Health in the 1980s that included the Training and Teaching Hospital and a service road identified as Road Lot No. 3. In 2009 BMC erected a steel gate along J. Miranda Avenue. On March 21, 2012, Dr. Efren SJ. Nerva, BMC Chief I, issued Hospital Memorandum No. 0310 ordering traffic rerouting within the BMC compound and the closure of the exit gate at the MCC Quarters effective April 1, 2012, with the OPD Exit Gate to be used instead. Petitioners explained the relocation and gate closure on grounds of security and to facilitate planned development, including a proposed Cancer Center Building scheduled for groundbreaking and construction mobilization in late 2012 and early 2013.

Events Prompting Litigation

Local residents and users of the road protested the closure. On May 19, 2012, Atty. Noe Botor requested the Naga City mayor to reopen or dismantle the gate as a public nuisance. The Sangguniang Panlungsod adopted a resolution authorizing the mayor to dismantle the gate, but the mayor instead filed a Verified Petition with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction against Bicol Medical Center in the Regional Trial Court, Naga City, Civil Case No. 2012-0073, where respondents were allowed to intervene.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Regional Trial Court conducted hearing on the application for injunctive relief. Naga City and intervenors presented the 1970s Revised Assessor's Tax Mapping Control Roll and Identification Map, and witness testimony asserting that Road Lot No. 3 had public character and had been used by the public since time immemorial. Bicol Medical Center presented TCT No. 13693 showing Department of Health ownership of the property that included Road Lot No. 3 and a certification from the City Engineer stating that the road from Panganiban Drive to BMC gates was not included in the inventory of city roads. On December 21, 2012, the trial court denied the application for injunctive relief, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate a clear and unmistakable right, material and substantial invasion of such right, and irreparable injury.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Only the intervenors appealed to the Court of Appeals. On February 28, 2014, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, holding that an applicant for a writ of injunction need only make a prima facie showing of right, and that intervenors had shown the public character of Road Lot No. 3 by evidence of longstanding public use and the assessor's mapping. The Court of Appeals ordered the trial court to issue a writ of mandatory preliminary injunction directed at the gate closure and relocation of the service road, but expressly clarified that the injunction did not prohibit construction of the Cancer Center Building. The Court of Appeals denied motions for reconsideration on August 26, 2014.

Supreme Court Proceedings and Interim Relief

Bicol Medical Center and the Department of Health filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court on September 29, 2014. On October 8, 2014 the Supreme Court granted a temporary restraining order enjoining implementation of the Court of Appeals decision and required respondents to comment. Respondents filed a Comment on January 13, 2015, reiterating that Road Lot No. 3 had been a public road prior to any hospital and asserting that the gate closure was not made solely for construction. The Supreme Court denied respondents' motion to lift the TRO in a February 25, 2015 Resolution and directed petitioners to file a reply.

Issue Presented

The sole issue framed by the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in directing the Regional Trial Court to issue a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the closure of Road Lot No. 3.

Petitioners' Contentions

Bicol Medical Center and the Department of Health argued that Road Lot No. 3 was part of the BMC compound and not intended for general public use, relying on TCT No. 13693 and the City Engineer's certification denying city inventory status. Petitioners asserted that the gate closure and relocation were for security and to facilitate construction of the Cancer Center Building, the award of which had reached mobilization stage with a contract valued at PHP 51,999,475.26 and Notice to Proceed dated February 3, 2014. Petitioners contended that the injunction effectively halted a government infrastructure project in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1818 and Administrative Circular No. 11-2000.

Respondents' Contentions

The intervenors/respondents maintained that Road Lot No. 3 was a public road historically open to the general public and that the gate closure constituted a public nuisance and a material invasion of their rights. Respondents emphasized that when they intervened and appealed there were no concrete plans for the Cancer Center Building and that they only sought to prevent illegal construction on a public road. They requested that the Supreme Court lift its TRO and allow the Court of Appeals order to be implemented.

Governing Legal Standards

The Court reiterated the nature and requisites for a writ of preliminary injunction and for a temporary restraining order under Rule 58, Sections 3 and 5, Rules of Court. A preliminary injunction is an ancillary interlocutory remedy to preserve the status quo ante and requires prima facie proof of a clear and unmistakable right, material and substantial invasion of that right, urgent necessity to prevent irreparable injury, and absence of an adequate remedy at law. The applicant need only present prima facie evidence, which the Court defined as evidence that is good and sufficient on its face and which, if not rebutted, will remain sufficient. A preliminary injunction must be granted only after notice and hearing where both parties may present evidence, whereas a TRO is an ex parte, short-lived measure to preserve the status quo until a hearing for preliminary injunction.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Findings

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred by assessing prima facie evidence only from Naga City and the interv

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 214073)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Bicol Medical Center and the Department of Health filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals Decision dated February 28, 2014 and Resolution dated August 26, 2014 in CA-G.R. SP No. 129806.
Noe B. Botor, Celjun F. Yap, Ismael A. Albao, Augusto S. Quilon, Edgar F. Esplana II, and Josefina F. Esplana intervened below and were respondents before this Court.
The Court of Appeals granted the intervenors' petition and directed the trial court to issue a writ of mandatory preliminary injunction against the closure of Road Lot No. 3.
The Supreme Court, through Leonen, J., resolved the Petition by reviewing the propriety of the Court of Appeals' directive to issue the writ of preliminary injunction.
This Court issued a temporary restraining order on October 8, 2014, and subsequently rendered final judgment on October 4, 2017.

Key Factual Allegations

The Provincial Hospital established in 1933 was later converted into the Bicol Medical Center whose compound included Road Lot No. 3 as a service road leading from Panganiban Road to J. Miranda Avenue.
The Province of Camarines Sur donated about five hectares to the Ministry of Health, now the Department of Health, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 13693, which included the Training and Teaching Hospital and Road Lot No. 3.
In 2009, BMC installed a steel gate along J. Miranda Avenue and in 2012 Dr. Efren SJ. Nerva issued Hospital Memorandum No. 0310 rerouting traffic and relocating the exit gate effective April 1, 2012.
The gate closure was implemented for security reasons and to make way for planned development including the proposed Cancer Center Building that would occupy about three-fourths of the width of Road Lot No. 3.
Atty. Noe Botor and the Naga City Sangguniang Panlungsod objected and sought dismantling of the gate, but Mayor Bongat filed a Verified Petition for injunctive relief in the Regional Trial Court.
The contract for the Cancer Center Building was awarded for P51,999,475.26 to OCM Steel Corporation with a Notice to Proceed dated February 3, 2014, and construction mobilization was undertaken.
Respondents asserted customary public use of Road Lot No. 3 and relied on the 1970s Revised Assessor's Tax Mapping Control Roll and an Identification Map to support public character claims.
Petitioners relied on TCT No. 13693 and a certification from the City Engineer of Naga City stating that the road was not included in the inventory of city roads.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court denied Naga City’s application for injunctive relief on December 21, 2012 for failure to prove a clear and unmistakable right and denied reconsideration on February 22, 2013.
Only the intervenors filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which granted the petition on February 28, 2014 and directed the trial court to issue a writ of mandatory preliminary injunction.
The Court of Appeals denied motions for reconsideration on August 26, 2014, and petitioners filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court on September 29, 2014.
The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on October 8, 2014 and later denied respondents' motion to lift the TRO on February 25, 2015.
This Court rendered its Decision on October 4, 2017 reversing the Court of Appeals and making the temporary restraining order permanent.

Issues Presented

The single issue presented was whether the Court of Appeals erred in directing the trial court to issue a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the closure and rerouting of Road Lot No. 3.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioners contended that Road Lot No. 3 was part of the property covered by TCT No. 13693 and was not intended for general public use, as supported by the City Engineer's