FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 215547. February 3, 2020.]

SPOUSES PRUDENTE D. SOLLER and PRECIOSA M. SOLLER,

RAFFY TELOSA, and GAVINO MANIBO, JR. , petitioners, vs.
HON. ROGELIO SINGSON, in his capacity as Secretary of
Department of Public Works and Highways, ENGR.
MAGTANGGOL ROLDAN, in his capacity as District Engineer
of the Department of Public Works and Highways-Oriental
Mindoro, Second District Office, KING'S BUILDERS and
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, and its President, ENGR.
ELEGIO MALALUAN, respondents.

DECISION

J.C. REYES, JR., J : p

Before this Court is an appeal by certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules

of Court, assailing the Resolution 2 dated July 10, 2014 and Resolution 3
dated November 18, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pinamalayan,
Oriental Mindoro, Branch 41 which dismissed the petition for the issuance of
Permanent Injunction and damages with prayer for Temporary Restraining
Order (TRO)/Preliminary Injunction filed by the Spouses Prudente D. Soller
and Preciosa M. Soller, Raffy Telosa, and Gavino Manibo, Jr. (petitioners).
The Relevant Antecedents
In their Complaint, petitioners averred that they are the owners of
parcels of land located near the Strong Republic Nautical Highway at
Poblacion, Bansud, Oriental Mindoro. 4
As a result, however, of the commencement of the elevation project
between kilometer 90 and 92 of the national highway near the Bansud River
Bridge by King's Builder and Development Corporation, their safety was
placed in imminent danger. 5
Further bolstering their claim, petitioners alleged that the respondents
initiated the elevation of the national highway to around one meter, thereby
blocking and retaining floodwaters naturally coming from the nearby Bansud
River and farm lands from the direction of the mountains of Corazon; and
submerging houses and lands on the left side of the road including their
properties. 6
Aside from safety issues, petitioners maintained that the elevation of
the highway impaired their use and enjoyment of their houses and properties
as pedestrians and vehicles alike will have to negotiate a steep climb and
descent in going to and from their properties. 7
Instead of filing their Answer, Secretary Rogelio Singson and Engr.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Magtanggol Roldan filed a Motion to Dismiss 8 alleging that the issuance of
injunctive writs is prohibited by Presidential Decree No. 1818; 9 and that the
doctrine of State's immunity from suit applies in this case.
In a Resolution 10 dated July 10, 2014, the RTC granted the Motion to
Dismiss, finding that it has no jurisdiction over the case as stated in Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 8975, 11 thus:
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the Motion to
Dismiss filed by defendants Secretary Rogelio Singson, Department of
Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and District Engineer Magtanggol
Roldan, DPWH Oriental Mindoro is GRANTED and the above-entitled
case is hereby ordered DISMISSED as a consequence thereof.
SO ORDERED. 12

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in a

Resolution 13 dated November 18, 2014.
Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the matter before this Court.
In its Comment, 14 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) essentially
avers that the petition must be dismissed outright as it raises factual issues;
and that the dismissal of the case was proper as petitioners prayed for the
issuance of a TRO in its complaint.
Petitioners, in their Reply, 15 insist that their petition involves a pure
question of law as the issue raised therein delves into the jurisdiction of the
RTC over the case.
The Issues
Ultimately, petitioners insist on the jurisdiction of the RTC over the
subject matter.
The Court's Ruling
Preliminarily, a motion to dismiss which has been granted on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter operates as a dismissal
without prejudice. 16 Relevantly, such order is not subject to an appeal under
Section 1 of Rule 41 17 of the Rules of Court. Under the same provision, the
remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule
65. 18
In this case, not only did petitioners avail of the wrong remedy by filing
an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, but they likewise violated the doctrine
of hierarchy of courts in assailing the twin Resolutions of the RTC, directly
before us. 19
Nevertheless, in a plethora of cases, the Court relaxed the application
of procedural rules. The Court has noted that a strict application of the rules
should not amount to straight-jacketing the administration of justice and that
the principles of justice and equity must not be sacrificed for a stern
application of the rules of procedure. 20 Thus, when the strict and rigid
application of procedural rules would result in technicalities that tend to
frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, they must always be
eschewed. 21
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 In the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, the Court finds it proper to
resolve the case on the merits.
Section 3 of R.A. No. 8975 expressly vests jurisdiction upon the
Supreme Court to issue any TRO, preliminary injunction or preliminary
mandatory injunction against the government, or any of its subdivisions,
officials or any person or entity, whether public or private acting under the
government's direction, to restrain, prohibit or compel specified acts. To be
specific:
Section 3. Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary
Restraining Orders, Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions . — No court,
except the Supreme Court, shall issue any temporary restraining
order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction
against the government, or any of its subdivisions, officials or any
person or entity, whether public or private acting under the
government direction, to restrain, prohibit or compel the following
acts:
(a) Acquisition, clearance and development of
the right-of-way and/or site or location of any national
government project;
(b) Bidding or awarding of contract/project of
the national government as defined under Section 2
hereof;
(c) Commencement prosecution, execution,
implementation, operation of any such contract or
project;
(d) Termination or rescission of any such
contract/project; and
(e) The undertaking or authorization of any
other lawful activity necessary for such contract/project.
xxx xxx xxx
In the case of Philco Aero, Inc. v. Secretary Tugade , 22 this Court
recognized the remedy of resorting directly before this Court in cases
covered under R.A. No. 8975. Section 3 of R.A. No. 8975 was explicit in
excluding other courts in the issuance of injunctive writs. However, in the
case of Bases Conversion and Development Authority v. Uy, 23 this Court
clarified that the prohibition applies only to TRO and preliminary injunction,
viz.:
A perusal of these aforequoted provisions readily reveals that
all courts, except this Court, are proscribed from issuing TROs and
writs of preliminary injunction against the implementation or
execution of specified government projects. Thus, the ambit of the
prohibition covers only temporary or preliminary restraining
orders or writs but NOT decisions on the merits granting
permanent injunctions. Considering that these laws trench on
judicial power, they should be strictly construed. Therefore, while
courts below this Court are prohibited by these laws from issuing
temporary or preliminary restraining orders pending the adjudication
of the case, said statutes however do not explicitly proscribe the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 issuance of a permanent injunction granted by a court of law arising
from an adjudication of a case on the merits. (Emphasis supplied)
As conferred by Section 19 24 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the RTC has
jurisdiction over all civil cases in which the subject matter under litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. One of which, as established by
jurisprudence, is a complaint for injunction. 25
It is a well-settled rule that jurisdiction of the court is determined by
the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought. 26
In this case, the allegations and the reliefs prayed for in the complaint
reveal that petitioner, as landowners of the surrounding estate of the
highway elevation project, sought to enjoin such construction; or if
completed, to restore the affected portion thereof, to their original state.
Clearly, the principal action is one for injunction, which is within the
jurisdiction of the RTC.
To emphasize, the principal action for injunction is distinct from the
provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist
except only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding. 27
Contrary to the OSG's stance, herein complaint is one for injunction with a
prayer for issuance of a TRO and/or preliminary injunction. In determining
the jurisdiction of the RTC, what is controlling is the principal action, and not
the ancillary remedy which is merely an incident thereto.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The
Resolutions dated July 10, 2014 and November 18, 2014 of the Regional Trial
Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 41 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Pinamalayan,
Oriental Mindoro, Branch 41 for further proceedings with deliberate dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, C.J., Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier and Lopez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 21-47.
2. Penned by Judge Recio A. Calabocal; id. at 46-53.

3. Id. at 54-56.
4. Id. at 59.

5. Id. at 60.
6. Id.

7. Id.
8. Id. at 101-124.

9. Prohibiting Courts from Issuing Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunctions in

Cases Involving Infrastructure and Natural Resources Development Projects
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 of, and Public Utilities Operated by the Government.
10. Penned by Judge Recto A. Calabocal; id. at 48-53.
11. AN ACT TO ENSURE THE EXPEDITIOUS IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLETION OF
GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS BY PROHIBITING LOWER COURTS
FROM ISSUING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS. PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIONS OR PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS, PROVIDING
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

12. Id. at 53.

13. Id. at 54-56.
14. Id. at 149-181.

15. Id. at 215-223.

16. Development Bank of the Philippines v. Judge Carpio, 805 Phil. 99, 109-110
(2017).
17. Section 1. Subject of appeal. — An appeal may be taken from a judgment or
final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter
therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. No appeal may be
taken from:
xxx xxx xxx
(h) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.

In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not
appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action
under Rule 65.
18. Id.

19. Quilo v. Bajao, 445 Phil. 453 (2016).

20. Cortal v. Larrazabal, 817 Phil. 464, 476-477 (2017).
21. Republic of the Philippines v. Dimarucot, G.R. No. 202069, March 7, 2018.

22. G.R. No. 237486, July 3, 2019.

23. 537 Phil. 18, 33 (2006).

24. Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction:

(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation;
25. Id.

26. Surviving Heirs of Alfredo R. Bautista v. Lindo, 728 Phil. 630, 637 (2014).
27. Evy Construction and Development Corporation v. Valiant Roll Forming Sales
Corporation, G.R. No. 207938, October 11, 2017, 842 SCRA 464, 474.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com