Paje v. Casino et al.

Posted on October 27, 2016

(Remedial law: Appeal; Environmental Law: Writ of Kalikasan)

G.R. No. 207257 February 3, 2015

HON. RAMON JESUS PAJE, in his capacity as DENR Secretary v. Hon. Teodoro Casino, et
al.

Facts

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, issued an Environmental Compliance

Certificate for a proposed coal-fired power plant at Subic, Zambales to be implemented by RP
Energy.

Hon. Teodoro Casino and a number of legislators filed a Petition for Writ of Kalikasan against RP
energy, SBMA, and Hon. Ramon Paje as the DENR secretary on the ground that actual
environmental damage will occur if the power plant project is implemented and that the
respondents failed to comply with certain laws and rules governing or relating to the issuance of
an ECC and amendments thereto.

The Court of Appeals denied the petition for the Writ of Kalikasan and invalidated the ECC. Both
the DENR and Casino filed an appeal, the former imputing error in invalidating the ECC and its
amendments, arguing that the determination of the validity of the ECC as well as its amendments
is beyond the scope of a Petition for a Writ of kalikasan; while the latter claim that it is entitled to
a Writ of Kalikasan.

Issues

1. Whether the parties may raise questions of fact on appeal on the issuance of a writ of
Kalikasan; and
2. Whether the validity of an ECC can be challenged via a writ of Kalikasan

Ruling

1. Yes, the parties may raise questions of fact on appeal on the issuance of a writ of
Kalikasan because the Rules on the Writ of kalikasan (Rule 7, Section 16 of the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases)allow the parties to raise, on appeal, questions of
fact— and, thus, constitutes an exception to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court— because of
the extraordinary nature of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of a writ
of kalikasan.
2. Yes, the validity of an ECC can be challenged via a writ of Kalikasan because such writ is
principally predicated on an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology, which involves environmental damage of a magnitude
that transcends political and territorial boundaries.
A party, therefore, who invokes the writ based on alleged defects or irregularities in the issuance
of an ECC must not only allege and prove such defects or irregularities, but must also provide a
causal link or, at least, a reasonable connection between the defects or irregularities in the
issuance of an ECC and the actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced
and healthful ecology of the magnitude contemplated under the Rules. Otherwise, the petition
should be dismissed outright and the action re-filed before the proper forum with due regard to
the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

In the case at bar, no such causal link or reasonable connection was shown or even attempted
relative to the aforesaid second set of allegations. It is a mere listing of the perceived defects or
irregularities in the issuance of the ECC.

MMDA vs Residents of Manila Bay

74 SCRA 661 – Political Law – Ministerial vs Discretionary Functions – Mandamus

Constitutional Law – Right to a Healthful Ecology
In 1999, the Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (CROMB) filed an action for mandamus to
compel the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and other government agencies
to clean up the Manila Bay. CROMB argued that the environmental state of the Manila Bay is
already dangerous to their health and the inaction of MMDA and the other concerned government
agencies violates their rights to life, health, and a balanced ecology guaranteed by the
Constitution. CROMB also averred under the Environmental Code, it is MMDA’s duty to clean up
the Manila Bay.
The trial court agreed with CROMB and ordered MMDA et al to clean up the Manila Bay. MMDA
assailed the decision on the ground that MMDA’s duty under the Environmental Code is merely
a discretionary duty hence it cannot be compelled by mandamus. Further, MMDA argued that the
RTC’s order was for a general clean up of the Manila Bay yet under the Environmental Code,
MMDA was only tasked to attend to specific incidents of pollution and not to undertake a massive
clean up such as that ordered by the court.
ISSUE: Whether or not MMDA may be compelled by mandamus to clean up Manila Bay.
HELD: Yes. It is true that in order for MMDA to implement laws like the Environmental Code, the
process of implementing usually involves the exercise of discretion i.e., where to set up landfills.
But this does not mean that their function or mandate under the law is already discretionary.
Looking closer, MMDA’s function to alleviate the problem on solid and liquid waste disposal
problems is a ministerial function. In short, MMDA does not have the discretion to whether or not
alleviate the garbage disposal problem in Metro Manila, particularly in the Manila Bay area. While
the implementation of the MMDA’s mandated tasks may entail a decision-making process, the
enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in
nature and may be compelled by mandamus.
Anent the issue on whether or not MMDA’s task under the Environmental Code involves a general
clean up, the Supreme Court ruled that MMDA’s mandate under the Environmental Code is to
perform cleaning in general and not just to attend to specific incidents of pollution. Hence, MMDA,
together with the other government agencies, must act to clean up the Manila Bay as ordered by
the RTC.

MARICRIS D. DOLOT v. RAMON PAJE, GR No. 199199, 2013-08-27

Facts:
On September 15, 2011, petitioner Maricris D. Dolot (Dolot), together with the parish priest of the
Holy Infant Jesus Parish and the officers of Alyansa Laban sa Mina sa Matnog (petitioners), filed
a petition for continuing mandamus, damages and attorney's fees with the
RTC of Sorsogon, docketed as Civil Case No. 2011-8338.
The petition contained the following pertinent allegations... iron ore mining operations being
conducted by Antones Enterprises, Global Summit Mines Development
Corporation and TR Ore in Barangays Balocawe and Bon-ot Daco, located in the Municipality of
Matnog, to no avail;
Matnog... need to protect, preserve and maintain the geological foundation of the municipality...
susceptible to flooding and landslides... confronted with the environmental dangers of flood
hazard, liquefaction, ground settlement, ground subsidence and landslide hazard... fter
investigation... did not have the required... permit to operate... issued to the operators a small-
scale mining permit, which they did not have authority to issue... representatives
DENR... did not do anything... violated Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7076
R.A. No. 7942
The case was referred by the Executive Judge to the RTC of Sorsogon, Branch 53 being the
designated environmental court.[8] In the Order[9] dated September 16, 2011, the case was
summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration... the RTC[11] further ruled that: (1) there was... no
final court decree, order or decision yet that the public officials allegedly failed to act on, which is
a condition for the issuance of the writ of continuing mandamus; (2) the case was prematurely
filed as the petitioners therein failed to exhaust their... administrative remedies; and (3) they also
failed to attach judicial affidavits and furnish a copy of the complaint to the government or
appropriate agency, as required by the rules.
Petitioner Dolot went straight to this Court on pure questions of law.
Issues:
whether the RTC-Branch 53 has jurisdiction to resolve Civil Case No. 2011-8338.
The other issue is whether the petition is dismissible on the grounds that: (1) there is no final court
decree, order or decision that the public officials allegedly... failed to act on; (2) the case was
prematurely filed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (3) the petitioners failed to
attach judicial affidavits and furnish a copy of the complaint to the government or appropriate
agency.
Ruling:
The RTC cannot solely rely on SC A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular No. 23-2008 and confine itself
within its four corners in determining whether it had jurisdiction over the action filed by the
petitioners.
By virtue of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,
jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is vested in... the
RTC.
The concept of continuing mandamus was first introduced in Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay.
he petition filed should be sufficient in form and substance before a court may take further action;
otherwise, the court may dismiss the petition outright
The writ of continuing mandamus is a special civil action that may be availed of "to compel the
performance of an act specifically enjoined by law."[33] The petition should mainly involve an
environmental and other related law, rule or regulation... or a right therein.
The Court also finds that the RTC erred in ruling that the petition is infirm for failure to attach
judicial affidavits.
the petition should be verified, contain supporting evidence and must be accompanied by a sworn
certification of... non-forum shopping. There is nothing in Rule 8 that compels the inclusion of
judicial affidavits, albeit not prohibited
Principles:
"courts are not... enslaved by technicalities, and they have the prerogative to relax compliance
with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both
the need to speedily put an end to litigation and the parties' right to an opportunity to be... heard."