Gabrielle R.

Munsayac 2-A
CASE 1: Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, et. al. vs. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay

The subject matter of this case is the Manila Bay, a once proud and prominent icon of Philippine
cleanliness and progress now besieged by numerous environmental problems. Respondents Concerned
Residents of Manila Bay lodged a complaint before the RTC against numerous petitioners, government
agencies allegedly tasked by law to maintain the cleanliness of the Bay. Their initial action, grounded upon
numerous bases, basically allege that the government agencies failure to perform its duty of preventing and
removing pollution in the Bay is an omission, the performance of which can be compelled through
Mandamus. It is respondents desire to hold all petitioners solidarily liable for the clean-up of the Manila
bay. Some of the legal bases relied upon by respondents Concerned Citizens were; the Constitutional rights
to life, health, and a balanced ecology, P.D. 1152 otherwise known as the Environment Code, P.D. 984
otherwise known as The Pollution Control Law, P.D. 1067 otherwise known as the Water Code, The Civil
Code, and International Law. Trial ensued, with petitioner government agencies (respondents in the RTC)
presenting evidence to illustrate a Manila Bay which was still within a somewhat acceptable level of
pollution, fronting its efforts of maintaining and reducing pollution.

The RTC ordered the government agencies to clean the Bay and restore it to a standard acceptable
for swimming and other contact activities. Specifically, the government agencies (MWSS, LWUA, PPA,
DENR, etc) were ordered to perform their respective specific functions that pertain to keeping the
cleanliness and prevention of pollution. Some of the petitioners appealed to the CA, who affirmed the RTC
ruling. Eventually, the government agencies involved found themselves before the Supreme Court, which
lead to the present action.

As regards the propriety of the issuance of the writ of Mandamus, the Supreme Court agreed with
the respondents by stating that these government agencies are enjoined, as a matter of statutory
obligation, to perform certain functions relating directly or indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation,
protection, and preservation of the Manila Bay. They are precluded from choosing not to perform these
duties.
1
In other words, the issuance of the Writ was a proper decision considering the fact that said
government agencies have been specifically mandated by the Law to perform such acts. The Court also had
occasion to discuss the relevance of the case in light of International Law. as a member of the
International Marine Organization and a signatory to the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships, as amended by MARPOL 73/78, the Philippines, through the PPA, must ensure the
provision of adequate reception facilities at ports and terminals for the reception of sewage from the ships
docking in Philippine ports.
2
The Court further stated that Pursuant to Secs. 2 and 6-c of EO 51and the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the PPA is ordered to immediately
adopt such measures to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-
generated wastes into the Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators.
3


This case is a clear example of how our Court has applied General Principles of International Law
to our jurisdiction. The Court used the membership of the Philippines in the International Marine
Organization and its signing of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships to
properly justify its decision of ordering the petitioners to perform its duties. The aforementioned convention
is essentially a Generally Accepted Principle of International Law. The Philippines, being a signatory to
such, must apply it to our jurisdiction in order to abide by our legal duty to the international community.









1
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, et. al. vs. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48
2
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, et. al. vs. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48
3
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, et. al. vs. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48
CASE 2: The Heritage Hotel Manila vs. National Union of Workers in the Hotel, Restaurant, and
Allied Industries Heritage Hotel Manila Supervisors Chain

This case takes the opportunity to discuss differences between employers and employees arising
out of a petition for certification election filed by a Union. Respondent Union filed with the DOLE-NCR a
petition for certification election. The Med-Arbiter granted the petition and ordered the holding of a
certification election. The preelection conference was not held as initially scheduled, rather, it was held a
year later. Petitioner moved to archive or to dismiss the petition due to alleged repeated non-appearance of
respondent. Respondents agreed to suspend proceedings until further notice.

Petitioner eventually discovered that Respondent failed to submit to the Bureau of Labor Relationsits
annual financial report for several years and the list of its members as required by law. Petitioners then filed
a Petition for Cancellation of Registration of respondent, on the ground of the non-submission of the said
documents. They prayed that Respondents Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter be cancelled and its
name be deleted from the list of legitimate labor organizations. It further requested the suspension of the
certification election proceedings. Meanwhile, pursuant to the certification election, respondent Union
successfully became the representatives of the employees in the collective bargaining unit. From these sets
of facts arise the main issue of the case.

Petitioners insisted that Respondents registration as a legitimate labor union should be cancelled,
disqualifying them from possibly being elected as the representative Union. They argue that once it is
determined that a ground enumerated in Article 239 of the Labor Code (failure to submit annual reports,
names of the members, etc.) is present, cancellation of registration should follow; it becomes the ministerial
duty of the Regional Director to cancel the registration of the labor organization. They point out that the
Regional Director has admitted that Respondent failed to submit the required documents for a number of
years; therefore, cancellation of its registration should have followed as a matter of course.

The Court ruled against the Petitioners and upheld the election of respondent Union. In justifying
its decision, the Court relied on the Constitution and the Philippines international obligations a embodied
in the International Labour Organizatioin Convention No. 87, pertaining to the non-dissolution of workers
organizations by administrative authority. They went on to state that the relevant provisions of the Labor
Code relied upon by Petitionser have been amended by Special Law, thus removing the mandatory
requirements of the Labor Code on the reportorial requirements of Labour Organizations. The Court
emphasized the laws relevant provisions which stated that: Failure to comply with the above
requirements shall not be a ground for cancellation of union registration but shall subject the erring
officers or members to suspension, expulsion from membership, or any appropriate penalty.

The Court also stated that: ILO Convention No. 87, which we have ratified in 1953, provides that
workers and employers organizations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative
authority. The ILO has expressed the opinion that the cancellation of union registration by the registrar of
labor unions, which in our case is the BLR, is tantamount to dissolution of the organization by
administrative authority when such measure would give rise to the loss of legal personality of the union or
loss of advantages necessary for it to carry out its activities, which is true in our jurisdiction it has
nonetheless reminded its members that dissolution of a union, and cancellation of registration for that
matter, involve serious consequences for occupational representation. It has, therefore, deemed it
preferable if such actions were to be taken only as a last resort and after exhausting other possibilities with
less serious effects on the organization
.


In sum, the Court stated that the regulatory authority of the State to exact compliance with
reportorial requirements is recognized. But in doing so, the State must always consider the paramount
interests of the Laborers whom the law looks upon with favor. The Court enunciated our duty to comply
with our international obligations, compliance with the ILO being one of them. Thus, the substantive
considerations of freedom of association and right of workers to self organization must always be given
preference over mere reportorial requirements in order to protect the interests of the workers. Moreover, it
has not been denied that respondents belatedly submitted the required documents. It is therefore within the
prerogative of the relevant authorities to consider this as substantial compliance, especially if doing so
would uphold the laborers sacred rights to freedom of association and self-organization.