Tuesday, June 10, 2014

EPZA vs Commission of Human Rights, G.R. No. 101476 case brief summary

EPZA vs Commission of Human Rights, G.R. No. 101476 case brief summary
April 14, 1992

Facts: EPZA purchased land from Filoil Refinery Corp. and before petitioner could take possession of lands, several individuals had entered the premises and planted agricultural products therein without permission from EPZA or its predecessor, Filoil. EPZA paid a P10,000-financial-assistance to those who accepted the same and signed quitclaims, amongst them private respondents(Valles, Aledia). Ten years later, private respondents filed in the CHR complaints for violation of Human Rights. CHR issued an injunction commanding EPZA to desist from committing such acts. EPZA filed in SC this petition for certiorari and prohibition.

Issue: Does CHR have the authority to issue an injuction order?

Ruling: CHR does not have the authority to issue an injunction order. It is limited only to investigation and not to try and resolve merits.  The "preventive measures and legal aid services" mentioned in the Constitution refer to extrajudicial and judicial remedies which the CHR may seek from the proper courts on behalf of the victims of human rights violations.
Petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED. The orders of injunction by Commission of Human Rights are annulled and set aside.

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Ins and Outs of Class Action Lawsuits: A Comprehensive Guide

Sometimes, you may buy a product only to find it defective. To make it worse, your search for the product reveals mass complaints. You can ...