Title
Republic vs. Spouses Lazo
Case
G.R. No. 195594
Decision Date
Sep 29, 2014
Spouses sold land to NIA for an irrigation project, sought compensation and safety measures, but SC voided injunction, citing lack of urgency and premature ruling.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 195594)

Relevant Transactions and Initial Actions

In 2006, the respondents sold a portion of their property in Monte Vista to the NIA for the construction of an open irrigation canal for the BPIP, with the agreed consideration totaling approximately P27,180,000. The respondents subsequently commissioned a geohazard study which culminated in the Geohazard Assessment Report (GAR), outlining serious risks associated with the canal's construction, suggesting significant structural recommendations to mitigate potential hazards.

Local Government Involvement

On December 22, 2006, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bantay passed Resolution No. 34, insisting that the GAR recommendations be enforced during the canal's construction. This prompted the respondents to write multiple letters to the NIA, advocating for the compliance with the GAR’s recommendations and demanding just compensation for a buffer zone of 14,381 square meters more or less, which they claimed was necessary for the safety of their subdivision residents given the potential risks from the irrigation canal.

Legal Proceedings Initiated by Respondents

When the NIA failed to address their requests, the respondents filed a complaint for just compensation and damages against the NIA in January 2008, eventually seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction against further construction activities. After an initial ex parte TRO was granted, the NIA, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the injunction, citing Republic Act No. 8975, which generally prohibits lower courts from issuing injunctions against government infrastructure projects.

Rulings of the Trial Court

The trial court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondents on September 17, 2008, granting their request for a preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction that restrained the NIA from continuing construction until compliance with local regulations and GAR recommendations was achieved. The court noted that the respondents’ assertion of just compensation was legitimate under the constitutional parameters of expropriation that allows for compensation even for burdens placed on property without formal eviction.

Court of Appeals Decision

The NIA later appealed the trial court’s decision, leading to the Court of Appeals affirming the lower court's ruling in October 2010, asserting the urgency of addressing just compensation for the respondents. The appellate court also found that the trial court was correct in asserting jurisdiction and that the issues involved were of extreme urgency, justifying the earlier issuance of the injunction.

Supreme Court Proceedings

In challenging the decisions of both lower courts, the NIA filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, contending that both lower courts erred in asserting their jurisdiction over the case, particularly in light of the prohibitions in R.A. No. 8975. The petitioner argued that the initial injunction was improperly granted and that the necessity for expropriation principles were not properly applied since the NIA contended that it had not expropriated additional property beyond what was originally

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.