G.R. No. 202666.September 29, 2014.
* Same; Same; Same; Nothing in the Rule would suggest that the habeas data protection shall be available only
RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES and SPS. MARGARITA and DAVID SUZARA, petitioners, vs. ST.
THERESAS COLLEGE, MYLENE RHEZA T. ESCUDERO, and JOHN DOES, respondents.
Constitutional Law; Habeas Data Rule (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC); Writ of Habeas Data; The writ of habeas data is a
remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the
gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of
the aggrieved party.The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life,
liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the
person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. It is an independent and summary remedy
designed to protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual, and to
provide a forum to enforce ones right to the truth and to informational privacy. It seeks to protect a persons right
to control information regarding oneself, particularly in instances in which such information is being collected
through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends.
Same; Same; Same; The existence of a persons right to informational privacy and a showing, at least by
substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the
victim are indispensable before the privilege of the writ may be extended.In developing the writ of habeas data,
the Court aimed to protect an individuals right to informational privacy, among others. A comparative law scholar
has, in fact, defined habeas data as a procedure designed to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the
information age. The writ, however, will not issue on the basis merely of an alleged unauthorized access to
information about a person. Availment of the writ requires the existence of a nexus between the right to privacy on
the one hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the other. Thus, the existence of a persons right to
informational privacy and a showing, at least by substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the
right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim are indispensable before the privilege of the writ may be
extended.
Same; Same; Same; Informational Privacy; The writ of habeas data can be availed of as an independent remedy to
enforce ones right to privacy, more specifically the right to informational privacy.Had the framers of the Rule
intended to narrow the operation of the writ only to cases of extralegal killings or enforced disappearances, the
above underscored portion of Section 2, reflecting a variance of habeas data situations, would not have been made.
Habeas data, to stress, was designed to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the information age. As
such, it is erroneous to limit its applicability to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances only.
In fact, the annotations to the Rule prepared by the Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court, after
explaining that the Writ of Habeas Data complements the Writ of Amparo, pointed out that: The writ of habeas
data, however, can be availed of as an independent remedy to enforce ones right to privacy, more specifically the
right to informational privacy. The remedies against the violation of such right can include the updating,
rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or information or files in possession or in control of
respondents. (emphasis ours) Clearly then, the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Data may also be availed of in cases
outside of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
against abuses of a person or entity engaged in the business of gathering, storing, and collecting of data.Nothing
in the Rule would suggest that the habeas data protection shall be available only against abuses of a person or
entity engaged in the business of gathering, storing, and collecting of data. As provided under Section 1 of the
Rule: Section 1. Habeas Data.The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy
in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,
or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding
the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
Same; Same; Same; Habeas data is a protection against unlawful acts or omissions of public officials and of
private individuals or entities engaged in gathering, collecting, or storing data about the aggrieved party and his or
her correspondences, or about his or her family.The provision, when taken in its proper context, as a whole,
irresistibly conveys the idea that habeas data is a protection against unlawful acts or omissions of public officials
and of private individuals or entities engaged in gathering, collecting, or storing data about the aggrieved party and
his or her correspondences, or about his or her family. Such individual or entity need not be in the business of
collecting or storing data. To engage in something is different from undertaking a business endeavour. To
engage means to do or take part in something. It does not necessarily mean that the activity
95
VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014
95
Vivares vs. St. Theresa's College
must be done in pursuit of a business. What matters is that the person or entity must be gathering, collecting or
storing said data or information about the aggrieved party or his or her family. Whether such undertaking carries
the element of regularity, as when one pursues a business, and is in the nature of a personal endeavour, for any
other reason or even for no reason at all, is immaterial and such will not prevent the writ from getting to said
person or entity.
Same; Same; Same; The Court saw the pressing need to provide for judicial remedies that would allow a summary
hearing of the unlawful use of data or information and to remedy possible violations of the right to privacy.The
Court saw the pressing need to provide for judicial remedies that would allow a summary hearing of the unlawful
use of data or information and to remedy possible violations of the right to privacy. In the same vein, the South
African High Court, in its Decision in the landmark case, H v. W, promulgated on January 30, 2013, recognized
that [t]he law has to take into account the changing realities not only technologically but also socially or else it
will lose credibility in the eyes of the people. x x x It is imperative that the courts respond appropriately to
changing times, acting cautiously and with wisdom. Consistent with this, the Court, by developing what may be
viewed as the Philippine model of the writ of habeas data, in effect, recognized that, generally speaking, having an
expectation of informational privacy is not necessarily incompatible with engaging in cyberspace activities,
including those that occur in OSNs.
Same; Same; Same; Online Social Networks; The purpose of an Online Social Networks (OSN) is precisely to
give users the ability to interact and to stay connected to other members of the same or different social media
platform through the sharing of statuses, photos, videos, among others, depending on the services provided by the
site.Briefly, the purpose of an OSN is precisely to give users the ability to interact and to stay connected to other
members of the same or different social media platform through the sharing of statuses, photos, videos, among
others, depending on the services provided by the site. It is akin to having a room filled with millions of personal
bulletin boards or walls, the contents of which are under the control of each and every user. In his or her bulletin
board, a user/owner can post anything from text, to pictures, to music and videos access to which would
depend on whether he or she allows one, some or all of the other users to see his or her posts. Since gaining
popularity, the OSN phenomenon has paved the way to the creation of various social networking sites, including
the one involved in the case at bar, www.facebook.com (Facebook), which, according to its developers, people use
to stay connected with friends and family, to discover whats going on in the world, and to share and express
what matters to them.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Facebook; Facebook connections are established through the process of friending
another user.Facebook connections are established through the process of friending another user. By sending a
friend request, the user invites another to connect their accounts so that they can view any and all Public and
Friends Only posts of the other. Once the request is accepted, the link is established and both users are permitted
to view the other users Public or Friends Only posts, among others. Friending, therefore, allows the user to
form or maintain one-to-one relationships with other users, whereby the user gives his or her Facebook friend
access to his or her profile and shares certain information to the latter.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Informational Privacy; Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or
her Online Social Networks (OSN) activity, it is first necessary that said user, in this case the children of
petitioners, manifest the intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent
access thereto or to limit its visibility.Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her OSN activity,
it is first necessary that said user, in this case the children of petitioners, manifest the intention to keep certain
posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. And this
intention can materialize in cyberspace through the utilization of the OSNs privacy tools. In other words,
utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation, in cyber world, of the users invocation of his or her right to
informational privacy.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Considering that the default setting for Facebook posts is Public, it can be
surmised that the photographs in question were viewable to everyone on Facebook, absent any proof that
petitioners children positively limited the disclosure of the photograph.Considering that the default setting for
Facebook posts is Public, it can be surmised that the photographs in question were viewable to everyone on
Facebook, absent any proof that petitioners children positively limited the disclosure of the photograph. If such
were the case, they cannot invoke the protection attached to the right to informational privacy. The ensuing
pronouncement in US v. Gines-Perez, 214 F. Supp. 2d, is most instructive: [A] person who places a photograph on
the Internet precisely intends to forsake and renounce all privacy rights to such imagery, particularly under
circumstances such as here, where the Defendant did not employ protective measures or devices that would have
controlled access to the Web page or the photograph itself.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Messages sent to the public at large in the chat room or e-mail that is forwarded
from correspondent to correspondent loses any semblance of privacy.Also, United States v. Maxwell, 45 M.J.
406, held that [t]he more open the method of transmission is, the less privacy one can reasonably expect.
Messages sent to the public at large in the chat room or e-mail that is forwarded from correspondent to
correspondent loses any semblance of privacy.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Setting a posts or profile details privacy to Friends is no assurance that it can
no longer be viewed by another user who is not Facebook friends with the source of the content.That the photos
are viewable by friends only does not necessarily bolster the petitioners contention. In this regard, the cyber
community is agreed that the digital images under this setting still remain to be outside the confines of the zones
of privacy in view of the following: (1) Facebook allows the world to be more open and connected by giving its
users the tools to interact and share in any conceivable way; (2) A good number of Facebook users befriend
other users who are total strangers; (3) The sheer number of Friends one user has, usually by the hundreds; and
(4) A users Facebook friend can share the formers post, or tag others who are not Facebook friends with the
former, despite its being visible only to his or her own Facebook friends. It is well to emphasize at this point that
setting a posts or profile details privacy to Friends is no assurance that it can no longer be viewed by another
user who is not Facebook friends with the source of the content. The users own Facebook friend can share said
content or tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto, regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is
Facebook friends or not with the former. Also, when the post is shared or when a person is tagged, the respective
Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or who was tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of
which was set at Friends.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; There can be no quibbling that the images in question, or to be more precise, the
photos of minor students scantily clad, are personal in nature, likely to affect, if indiscriminately circulated, the
reputation of the minors enrolled in a conservative institution.In sum, there can be no quibbling that the images
in question, or to be more precise, the photos of minor students scantily clad, are personal in nature, likely to
affect, if indiscriminately circulated, the reputation of the minors enrolled in a conservative institution. However,
the records are bereft of any evidence, other than bare assertions that they utilized Facebooks privacy settings to
make the photos visible only to them or to a select few. Without proof that they placed the photographs subject of
this case within the ambit of their protected zone of privacy, they cannot now insist that they have an expectation
of privacy with respect to the photographs in question.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; As a cyberspace community member, one has to be proactive in protecting his
or her own privacy.It has been said that the best filter is the one between your childrens ears. This means that
self-regulation on the part of OSN users and internet consumers in general is the best means of avoiding privacy
rights violations. As a cyberspace community member, one has to be proactive in protecting his or her own
privacy. It is in this regard that many OSN users, especially minors, fail. Responsible social networking or
observance of the netiquettes on the part of teenagers has been the concern of many due to the widespread
notion that teenagers can sometimes go too far since they generally lack the people skills or general wisdom to
conduct themselves sensibly in a public forum.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Considering the complexity of the cyber world and its pervasiveness, as well as
the dangers that these children are wittingly or unwittingly exposed to in view of their unsupervised activities in
cyberspace, the participation of the parents in disciplining and educating their children about being a good digital
citizen is encouraged by these institutions and organizations.Considering the complexity of the cyber world and
its pervasiveness, as well as the dangers that these children are wittingly or unwittingly exposed to in view of their
unsupervised activities in cyberspace, the participation of the parents in disciplining and educating their children
about being a good digital citizen is encouraged by these institutions and organizations. In fact, it is believed that
to limit such risks, theres no substitute for parental involvement and supervision.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; It is, thus, incumbent upon internet users to exercise due diligence in their
online dealings and activities and must not be negligent in protecting their rights.It is, thus, incumbent upon
internet users to exercise due diligence in their online dealings and activities and must not be negligent in
protecting their rights. Equity serves the vigilant. Demanding relief from the courts, as here, requires that
claimants themselves take utmost care in safeguarding a right which they allege to have been violated. These are
indispensable. We cannot afford protection to persons if they themselves did nothing to place the matter within the
confines of their private zone. OSN users must be mindful enough to learn the use of privacy tools, to use them if
they desire to keep the information private, and to keep track of changes in the available privacy settings, such as
those of Facebook, especially because Facebook is notorious for changing these settings and the sites layout
often. Vivares vs. St. Theresa's College, 737 SCRA 92, G.R. No. 202666 September 29, 2014
G.R. No. 203254.October 8, 2014.*
DR. JOY MARGATE LEE, petitioner, vs. P/SUPT. NERI A. ILAGAN, respondent.
Constitutional Law; Habeas Data Rule (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC); A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, or the Rule on the Writ of
Habeas Data (Habeas Data Rule), was conceived as a response, given the lack of effective and available remedies,
to address the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances.A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC,
or the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (Habeas Data Rule), was conceived as a response, given the lack of
effective and available remedies, to address the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced
disappearances. It was conceptualized as a judicial remedy enforcing the right to privacy, most especially the right
to informational privacy of individuals, which is defined as the right to control the collection, maintenance, use,
and dissemination of data about oneself.
Same; Same; As defined in Section 1 of the Habeas Data Rule, the writ of habeas data now stands as a remedy
available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful
act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home, and correspondence of the
aggrieved party.As defined in Section 1 of the Habeas Data Rule, the writ of habeas data now stands as a
remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the
gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home, and correspondence of
the aggrieved party. Thus, in order to support a petition for the issuance of such writ, Section 6 of the Habeas
Data Rule essentially requires that the petition sufficiently alleges, among others, [t]he manner the right to
privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party. In
other words, the petition must adequately show that there exists a nexus between the right to privacy on the one
hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the other. Corollarily, the allegations in the petition must be
supported by substantial evidence showing an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty
or security of the victim. In this relation, it bears pointing out that the writ of habeas data will not issue to protect
purely property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor are
vague and doubtful.
Same; Same; Right to Privacy; Sex Videos; As the rules and existing jurisprudence on the matter evoke, alleging
and eventually proving the nexus between ones privacy right to the cogent rights to life, liberty or security are
crucial in habeas data cases, so much so that a failure on either account certainly renders a habeas data petition
dismissible.In this case, the Court finds that Ilagan was not able to sufficiently allege that his right to privacy in
life, liberty or security was or would be violated through the supposed reproduction and threatened dissemination
of the subject sex video. While Ilagan purports a privacy interest in the suppression of this video which he fears
would somehow find its way to Quiapo or be uploaded in the internet for public consumption he failed to
explain the connection between such interest and any violation of his right to life, liberty or security. Indeed,
courts cannot speculate or contrive versions of possible transgressions. As the rules and existing jurisprudence on
the matter evoke, alleging and eventually proving the nexus between ones privacy right to the cogent rights to
life, liberty or security are crucial in habeas data cases, so much so that a failure on either account certainly
renders a habeas data petition dismissible, as in this case.
G.R. No. 127685. July 23, 1998.*
BLAS F. OPLE, petitioner, vs. RUBEN D. TORRES, ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, HECTOR VILLANUEVA,
CIELITO HABITO, ROBERT BARBERS, CARMENCITA REODICA, CESAR SARINO, RENATO
VALENCIA, TOMAS P. AFRICA, HEAD OF THE NATIONAL COMPUTER CENTER and CHAIRMAN
OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondents.
Constitutional Law; Administrative Law; Administrative Order No. 308; As a Senator, petitioner is possessed of
the requisite standing to bring suit raising the issue that the issuance of Administrative Order No. 308 is a
usurpation of legislative power.As is usual in constitutional litigation, respondents raise the threshold issues
relating to the standing to sue of the petitioner and the justiciability of the case at bar. More specifically,
respondents aver that petitioner has no legal interest to uphold and that the implementing rules of A.O. No. 308
have yet to be promulgated. These submissions do not deserve our sympathetic ear. Petitioner Ople is a
distinguished member of our Senate. As a Senator, petitioner is possessed of the requisite standing to bring suit
raising the issue that the issuance of A.O. No. 308 is a usurpation of legislative power. As taxpayer and member of
the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), petitioner can also impugn the legality of the misalignment of
public funds and the misuse of GSIS funds to implement A.O. No. 308.
Same; Same; Same; Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as
determined by proper governmental organs.Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying
policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs. It enables the President to fix a
uniform standard of administrative efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents. To this end, he can issue
administrative orders, rules and regulations.
Same; Same; Same; Administrative Order No. 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an
administrative order.Prescinding from these precepts, we hold that A.O. No. 308 involves a subject that is not
appropriate to be covered by an administrative order. x x x An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the
President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of government. It must be in harmony
with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy.
Same; Same; Same; Argument that Administrative Order No. 308 implements the legislative policy of the
Administrative Code of 1987 rejected.We reject the argument that A.O. No. 308 implements the legislative
policy of the Administrative Code of 1987. The Code is a general law and incorporates in a unified document the
major structural, functional and procedural principles of governance and embodies changes in administrative
structures and procedures designed to serve the people.
Same; Same; Same; Administrative Order No. 308 cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative
legislation because facially it violates the right to privacy.Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be
the subject of a law, still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation because facially it
violates the right to privacy. The essence of privacy is the right to be let alone.
Same; Same; Same; Any law or order that invades individual privacy will be subjected by the Court to strict
scrutiny.In no uncertain terms, we also underscore that the right to privacy does not bar all incursions into
individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and technological advancements that enhance
public service and the common good. It merely requires that the law be narrowly focused and a compelling
interest justify such intrusions. Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper safeguards and well-
defined standards to prevent unconstitutional invasions. We reiterate that any law or order that invades individual
privacy will be subjected by this Court to strict scrutiny. Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141, G.R. No. 127685 July
23, 1998
G.R. No. 207257.February 3, 2015.*
HON. RAMON JESUS P. PAJE, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), petitioner, vs. HON. TEODORO A. CASIO, et al
Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Writ of Kalikasan; The Rules on the Writ of Kalikasan, which is Part III of
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC), was issued by the Court pursuant to its power to
promulgate rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, in particular, the individuals right to
a balanced and healthful ecology.The Rules on the Writ of Kalikasan, which is Part III of the Rules of Procedure
for Environmental Cases, was issued by the Court pursuant to its power to promulgate rules for the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, in particular, the individuals right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Section 1 of Rule 7 provides: Section 1. Nature of the writ.The writ is a remedy available to a natural or
juridical person, entity authorized by law, peoples organization, nongovernmental organization, or any public
interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of
a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude
as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
Same; Same; Same; The writ of kalikasan is categorized as a special civil action and was, thus, conceptualized as
an extraordinary remedy, which aims to provide judicial relief from threatened or actual violation/s of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of a magnitude or degree of damage that transcends
political and territorial boundaries.The writ is categorized as a special civil action and was, thus, conceptualized
as an extraordinary remedy, which aims to provide judicial relief from threatened or actual violation/s of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of a magnitude or degree of damage that transcends
political and territorial boundaries. It is intended to provide a stronger defense for environmental rights through
judicial efforts where institutional arrangements of enforcement, implementation and legislation have fallen short
and seeks to address the potentially exponential nature of large-scale ecological threats. Under Section 1 of Rule
7, the following requisites must be present to avail of this extraordinary remedy: (1) there is an actual or
threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; (2) the actual or threatened
violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity;
and (3) the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as
to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. Expectedly, the Rules do
not define the exact nature or degree of environmental damage but only that it must be sufficiently grave, in terms
of the territorial scope of such damage, so as to call for the grant of this extraordinary remedy. The gravity of
environmental damage sufficient to grant the writ is, thus, to be decided on a case-to-case basis.
Same; Same; Same; The writ of kalikasan 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.As earlier noted, the writ of kalikasan 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 refiled before the proper forum with due regard
to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. This must be so if we are to preserve the noble and
laudable purposes of the writ against those who seek to abuse it.
Same; Same; Same; Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies; Due to the extreme urgency of the matter at hand,
the present case is an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.Be that as it may, we
shall resolve both the issues proper in a writ of kalikasan case and those which are not, commingled as it were
here, because of the exceptional character of this case. We take judicial notice of the looming power crisis that our
nation faces. Thus, the resolution of all the issues in this case is of utmost urgency and necessity in order to finally
determine the fate of the project center of this controversy. If we were to resolve only the issues proper in a writ of
kalikasan case and dismiss those not proper therefor, that will leave such unresolved issues open to another round
of protracted litigation. In any case, we find the records sufficient to resolve all the issues presented herein. We
also rule that, due to the extreme urgency of the matter at hand, the present case is an exception to the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies. As we have often ruled, in exceptional cases, we can suspend the rules of
procedure in order to achieve substantial justice, and to address urgent and paramount State interests vital to the
life of our nation.
Same; Same; Same; The Rules on the Writ of Kalikasan 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.It is worth noting that the Rules on the Writ of
Kalikasan 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. Thus, we shall review both questions of law and fact in resolving the issues presented in this
case.
Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) sustains the appellate courts findings that the Casio Group failed
to establish the alleged grave environmental damage which will be caused by the construction and operation of the
power plant.In upholding the evidence and arguments of RP Energy, relative to the lack of proof as to the
alleged significant environmental damage that will be caused by the project, the appellate court relied mainly on
the testimonies of experts, which we find to be in accord with judicial precedents. Thus, we ruled in one case:
Although courts are not ordinarily bound by testimonies of experts, they may place whatever weight they choose
upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert
testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the
witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his
opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative
opportunities for study and observation of the matters about which he testifies, and any other matters which serve
to illuminate his statements. The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the
court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert
opinion may be given controlling effects. (20 Am. Jur., 1056-1058) The problem of the credibility of the expert
witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not
reviewable in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. Hence, we sustain the appellate courts findings that the
Casio Group failed to establish the alleged grave environmental damage which will be caused by the construction
and operation of the power plant.
Same; Same; Same; The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases liberally provide the courts with means and
methods to obtain sufficient information in order to adequately protect or safeguard the right to a healthful and
balanced ecology.The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases liberally provide the courts with means and
methods to obtain sufficient information in order to adequately protect or safeguard the right to a healthful and
balanced ecology. In Section 6(l) of Rule 3 (Pre-Trial), when there is a failure to settle, the judge shall, among
others, determine the necessity of engaging the services of a qualified expert as a friend of the court (amicus
curiae). While, in Section 12 of Rule 7 (Writ of Kalikasan), a party may avail of discovery measures: (1) ocular
inspection and (2) production or inspection of documents or things. The liberality of the Rules in gathering and
even compelling information, specifically with regard to the Writ of Kalikasan, is explained in this wise: [T]he
writ of kalikasan was refashioned as a tool to bridge the gap between allegation and proof by providing a remedy
for would-be environmental litigants to compel the production of information within the custody of the
government. The writ would effectively serve as a remedy for the enforcement of the right to information about
the environment. The scope of the fact-finding power could be: (1) anything related to the issuance, grant of a
government permit issued or information controlled by the government or private entity and (2) [i]nformation
contained in documents such as environmental compliance certificate (ECC) and other government records. In
addition, the [w]rit may also be employed to compel the production of information, subject to constitutional
limitations. This function is analogous to a discovery measure, and may be availed of upon application for the
writ.
Same; Same; Same; In environmental cases, the power to appoint friends of the court in order to shed light on
matters requiring special technical expertise as well as the power to order ocular inspections and production of
documents or things evince the main thrust of, and the spirit behind, the Rules to allow the court sufficient leeway
in acquiring the necessary information to rule on the issues presented for its resolution, to the end that the right to
a healthful and balanced ecology may be adequately protected.In environmental cases, the power to appoint
friends of the court in order to shed light on matters requiring special technical expertise as well as the power to
order ocular inspections and production of documents or things evince the main thrust of, and the spirit behind, the
Rules to allow the court sufficient leeway in acquiring the necessary information to rule on the issues presented for
its resolution, to the end that the right to a healthful and balanced ecology may be adequately protected. To draw a
parallel, in the protection of the constitutional rights of an accused, when life or liberty is at stake, the testimonies
of witnesses may be compelled as an attribute of the Due Process Clause. Here, where the right to a healthful and
balanced ecology of a substantial magnitude is at stake, should we not tread the path of caution and prudence by
compelling the testimonies of these alleged experts?
Procedural Rules and Technicalities; A court has the power to suspend its rules of procedure in order to attain
substantial justice so that it has the discretion, in exceptional cases, to take into consideration matters not
originally within the scope of the issues raised in the pleadings or set during the preliminary conference, in order
to prevent a miscarriage of justice.A court has the power to suspend its rules of procedure in order to attain
substantial justice so that it has the discretion, in exceptional cases, to take into consideration matters not
originally within the scope of the issues raised in the pleadings or set during the preliminary conference, in order
to prevent a miscarriage of justice. In the case at bar, the importance of the signature cannot be seriously doubted
because it goes into the consent and commitment of the project proponent to comply with the conditions of the
ECC, which is vital to the protection of the right to a balanced and healthful ecology of those who may be affected
by the project.
Environmental Compliance Certificate; The laws governing the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), i.e.,
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1151 and PD 1586, do not specifically state that the lack of signature in the
Statement of Accountability has the effect of invalidating the ECC.The laws governing the ECC, i.e.,
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1151 and PD 1586, do not specifically state that the lack of signature in the
Statement of Accountability has the effect of invalidating the ECC. Unlike in wills or donations, where failure to
comply with the specific form prescribed by law leads to its nullity, the applicable laws here are silent with respect
to the necessity of a signature in the Statement of Accountability and the effect of the lack thereof. This is, of
course, understandable because the Statement of Accountability is a mere offshoot of the rule-making powers of
the DENR relative to the implementation of PD 1151 and PD 1586. To determine, therefore, the effect of the lack
of signature, we must look at the significance thereof under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Rules of
the DENR and the surrounding circumstances of this case.
Same; While the signature is necessary for the validity of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), the
particular circumstances of this case show that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
and Redondo Peninsula Energy, Inc. (RP Energy) were not properly apprised of the issue of lack of signature in
order for them to present controverting evidence and arguments on this point, as the matter only developed during
the course of the proceedings upon clarificatory questions from the appellate court.In sum, we rule that the
appellate court erred when it invalidated the ECC on the ground of lack of signature of Mr. Aboitiz in the ECCs
Statement of Accountability relative to the copy of the ECC submitted by RP Energy to the appellate court. While
the signature is necessary for the validity of the ECC, the particular circumstances of this case show that the
DENR and RP Energy were not properly apprised of the issue of lack of signature in order for them to present
controverting evidence and arguments on this point, as the matter only developed during the course of the
proceedings upon clarificatory questions from the appellate court. Consequently, RP Energy cannot be faulted for
submitting the certified true copy of the ECC only after it learned that the ECC had been invalidated on the ground
of lack of signature in the January 30, 2013 Decision of the appellate court.
License and Permit, Distinguished.The IPRA Law and its implementing rules do not define the terms
license and permit so that resort to their plain or ordinary meaning in relation to the intendment of the law is
appropriate. A license has been defined as a governmental permission to perform a particular act (such as
getting married), conduct a particular business or occupation, operate machinery or vehicles after proving capacity
and ability to do so safely, or use property for a certain purpose while a permit has been defined as a license or
other document given by an authorized public official or agency (building inspector, department of motor
vehicles) to allow a person or business to perform certain acts.
Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Writ of Kalikasan; Ancestral Domain; Even if the indigenous community
does not actually reside on the proposed lease site, the government agency would still be required to obtain the
Certificate of Non-Overlap (CNO) precisely to rule out the possibility that the proposed lease site encroaches upon
an ancestral domain.Even if the indigenous community does not actually reside on the proposed lease site, the
government agency would still be required to obtain the CNO precisely to rule out the possibility that the proposed
lease site encroaches upon an ancestral domain. The reason for this is that an ancestral domain does not only cover
the lands actually occupied by an indigenous community, but all areas where they have a claim of ownership,
through time immemorial use, such as hunting, burial or worship grounds and to which they have traditional
access for their subsistence and other traditional activities.
Same; Same; Same; Same; That the project site was formerly used as the firing range of the U.S. Armed Forces
does not preclude the possibility that a present or future claim of ancestral domain may be made over the aforesaid
site.That the project site was formerly used as the firing range of the U.S. Armed Forces does not preclude the
possibility that a present or future claim of ancestral domain may be made over the aforesaid site. The concept of
an ancestral domain indicates that, even if the use of an area was interrupted by the occupation of foreign forces, it
may still be validly claimed to be an ancestral domain.
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority; Jurisdiction; The Supreme Court (SC) finds that the power to approve or
disapprove projects within the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ) is one such power over which the Subic Bay
Metropolitan Authoritys (SBMAs) authority prevails over the Local Government Units (LGUs) autonomy.In ordinance are themselves the real parties-in-interest, for which reason, they are no longer required to show any
the case at bar, we find that the power to approve or disapprove projects within the SSEZ is one such power over
which the SBMAs authority prevails over the LGUs autonomy. Hence, there is no need for the SBMA to secure
the approval of the concerned sanggunians prior to the implementation of the subject project. This interpretation is
based on the broad grant of powers to the SBMA over all administrative matters relating to the SSEZ under
Section 13 of RA 7227, as aforediscussed. Equally important, under Section 14, other than those involving defense
and security, the SBMAs decision prevails in case of conflict between the SBMA and the LGUs in all matters
concerning the SSEZ.
Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Writ of Kalikasan; In exceptional cases, a writ of kalikasan may be availed
of to challenge defects in the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC).In general, the proper procedure to
question a defect in an ECC is to follow the appeal process provided in DAO 2003-30 and the Revised Manual.
After complying with the proper administrative appeal process, recourse may be made to the courts in accordance
with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. However, as earlier discussed, in exceptional cases, a
writ of kalikasan may be availed of to challenge defects in the ECC provided that (1) the defects are causally
linked or reasonably connected to an environmental damage of the nature and magnitude contemplated under the
Rules on Writ of Kalikasan, and (2) the case does not violate, or falls under an exception to, the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies and/or primary jurisdiction. Paje vs. Casio, 749 SCRA 39, G.R. No.
207366 February 3, 2015
G.R. No. 187836.November 25, 2014.*
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS, namely, SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, and VLADIMIR
ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, petitioners, vs. ALFREDO S. LIM, in his capacity as mayor of the City of
Manila, respondent.
Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Prohibition; Assuming that a petition for declaratory relief is the proper
remedy, and that the petitions should have been filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the Supreme Court
(SC) has, time and again, resolved to treat such a petition as one for prohibition, provided that the case has far-
reaching implications and transcendental issues that need to be resolved, as in these present petitions.Assuming
that a petition for declaratory relief is the proper remedy, and that the petitions should have been filed with the
Regional Trial Court, we have, time and again, resolved to treat such a petition as one for prohibition, provided
that the case has far-reaching implications and transcendental issues that need to be resolved, as in these present
petitions. On a related issue, we initially found convincing the argument that the petitions should have been filed
with the Regional Trial Court, it having concurrent jurisdiction with this Court over a special civil action for
prohibition, and original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief. However, as we have repeatedly said, the
petitions at bar are of transcendental importance warranting a relaxation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
Locus Standi; Parties; Social Justice Society (SJS), now represented by SJS Officer Alcantara, has been
recognized by the Court in G.R. No. 156052 to have legal standing to sue in connection with the same subject
matter herein considered. The rest of the petitioners are residents of Manila. Hence, all of them have a direct
interest in the prohibition proceedings against the enforcement of the assailed ordinance.No different are herein
petitioners who seek to prohibit the enforcement of the assailed ordinance, and who deal with the same subject
matter that concerns a public right. Necessarily, the people who are interested in the nullification of such an
specific interest therein. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that SJS, now represented by SJS Officer Alcantara, has
been recognized by the Court in G.R. No. 156052 to have legal standing to sue in connection with the same
subject matter herein considered. The rest of the petitioners are residents of Manila. Hence, all of them have a
direct interest in the prohibition proceedings against the enforcement of the assailed ordinance.
Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; Prohibition; Statutes; The writs of certiorari and prohibition are
proper remedies to test the constitutionality of statutes.It is pointless to discuss the matter at length in these
instant cases of transcendental importance in view of the Courts pronouncement, in Magallona v. Ermita, 655
SCRA 476 (2011). There it held that the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to test the
constitutionality of statutes, notwithstanding the following defects: In praying for the dismissal of the petition on
preliminary grounds, respondents seek a strict observance of the offices of the writs of certiorari and prohibition,
noting that the writs cannot issue absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of judicial, quasi-
judicial or ministerial powers on the part of respondents and resulting prejudice on the part of petitioners.
Respondents submission holds true in ordinary civil proceedings. When this Court exercises its constitutional
power of judicial review, however, we have, by tradition, viewed the writs of certiorari and prohibition as proper
remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes, and indeed, of acts of other branches of government.
Issues of constitutional import x x x carry such relevance in the life of this nation that the Court inevitably finds
itself constrained to take cognizance of the case and pass upon the issues raised, noncompliance with the letter of
procedural rules notwithstanding. The statute sought to be reviewed here is one such law.
Same; Judicial Review; Requisites for a Valid Exercise of the Power of Judicial Review.For a valid exercise of
the power of judicial review, the following requisites shall concur: (1) the existence of a legal controversy; (2)
legal standing to sue of the party raising the constitutional question; (3) a plea that judicial review be exercised at
the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.
Same; Verification; Certification Against Forum Shopping; The verification and certification against forum
shopping are governed specifically by Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.The verification and
certification against forum shopping are governed specifically by Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.
Section 4 provides that a pleading, when required to be verified, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading if it lacks
a proper verification while Section 5 requires that the certification to be executed by the plaintiff or principal party
be under oath. These sections, in turn, should be read together with Sections 6 and 12, Rule 2 of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice. Section 6 of the latter Rules, specifically, likewise provides that any competent evidence of
identity specified under Section 12 thereof may now be presented before the notary public, to wit: SEC. 12.
Competent Evidence of Identity.The phrase competent evidence of identity refers to the identification of an
individual based on: (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the individual, such as but not limited to passport, drivers license, Professional
Regulations Commission ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voters ID,
Barangay certification, Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS)
card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID,
seamans book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID,
certification from the National Council for the Welfare of Disable Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD) certification.
Same; Civil Procedure; Forum Shopping; Words and Phrases; Forum shopping is an act of a party, against whom
an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion
in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari.In Spouses Cruz v. Spouses Caraos,
521 SCRA 510 (2007), the Court expounded on the nature of forum shopping. Thus: Forum shopping is an act of a
party, against whom an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly getting
a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari. It may also be the
institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the
other court would make a favorable disposition. The established rule is that for forum shopping to exist, both
actions must involve the same transactions, same essential facts and circumstances and must raise identical causes
of actions, subject matter, and issues.
Same; Same; Same; It bears reiterating that a judgment on the merits is one rendered after a determination of
which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary or formal or merely
technical point.Here, it should be noted that this Court denied the said Manifestation and Urgent Motion, and
refused to act on the succeeding pleadings, for being moot. Clearly, the merits of the motion were not considered
by the Court. The following disquisition of the Court in Spouses Cruz v. Spouses Caraos is further enlightening:
The judgment of dismissal in Civil Case No. 95-1387 does not constitute res judicata to sufficiently bar the
refiling thereof in Civil Case No. 96-0225. As earlier underscored, the dismissal was one without prejudice. Verily,
it was not a judgment on the merits. It bears reiterating that a judgment on the merits is one rendered after a
determination of which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary or formal
or merely technical point. The dismissal of the case without prejudice indicates the absence of a decision on the
merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action as though the dismissed action had
not been commenced. (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted) Considering that there is definitely no forum
shopping in the instant cases, we need not discuss in detail the elements of forum shopping.
Local Government Code of 1991; Zoning; The Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 expressly provides that
the Sangguniang Panlungsod is vested with the power to reclassify land within the jurisdiction of the city
subject to the pertinent provisions of the Code.The Local Government Code of 1991 expressly provides that the
Sangguniang Panlungsod is vested with the power to reclassify land within the jurisdiction of the city subject to
the pertinent provisions of the Code. It is also settled that an ordinance may be modified or repealed by another
ordinance. These have been properly applied in G.R. No. 156052, where the Court upheld the position of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod to reclassify the land subject of the Ordinance, and declared that the mayor has the duty
to enforce Ordinance No. 8027, provided that it has not been repealed by the Sangguniang Panlungsod or
otherwise annulled by the courts. In the same case, the Court also used the principle that the Sangguniang
Panlungsod is in the best position to determine the needs of its constituents that the removal of the oil depots
from the Pandacan area is necessary to protect the residents of Manila from catastrophic devastation in case of a
terrorist attack on the Pandacan Terminals.
Supreme Court; Judicial Power; When the judiciary mediates it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of
the Manila Sangguniang Panlungsod, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to the Court by
the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties
in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them.In its Comment, the 7th
Council (2007-2010) alleged that the assailed Ordinance was enacted to alleviate the economic condition of its
constituents. Expressing the same position, former Mayor Lim even went to the extent of detailing the steps he
took prior to the signing of the Ordinance, if only to show his honest intention to make the right decision. The fact
remains, however, that notwithstanding that the conditions with respect to the operations of the oil depots existing
prior to the enactment of Ordinance No. 8027 do not substantially differ to this day, as would later be discussed,
the position of the Sangguniang Panlungsod on the matter has thrice changed, largely depending on the new
composition of the council and/or political affiliations. The foregoing, thus, shows that its determination of the
general welfare of the city does not after all gear towards the protection of the people in its true sense and
meaning, but is, one way or another, dependent on the personal preference of the members who sit in the council
as to which particular sector among its constituents it wishes to favor. Now that the City of Manila, through the
mayor and the city councilors, has changed its view on the matter, favoring the citys economic-related benefits,
through the continued stay of the oil terminals, over the protection of the very lives and safety of its constituents, it
is imperative for this Court to make a final determination on the basis of the facts on the table as to which specific
right of the inhabitants of Manila should prevail. For, in this present controversy, history reveals that there is truly
no such thing as the will of Manila insofar as the general welfare of the people is concerned. If in sacrilege, in
free translation of Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936), by Justice Laurel, we say when the
judiciary mediates we do not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the Manila Sangguniang Panlungsod, but
only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to the Court by the Constitution to determine conflicting
claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which
that instrument secures and guarantees to them.
Oil Depots; Pandacan Terminal; The issue of whether or not the Pandacan Terminal is not a likely target of
terrorist attacks has already been passed upon in G.R. No. 156052. Based on the assessment of the Committee on
Housing, Resettlement and Urban Development of the City of Manila and the then position of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod, the Supreme Court (SC) was convinced that the threat of terrorism is imminent.The issue of
whether or not the Pandacan Terminal is not a likely target of terrorist attacks has already been passed upon in
G.R. No. 156052. Based on the assessment of the Committee on Housing, Resettlement and Urban Development
of the City of Manila and the then position of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, the Court was convinced that the
threat of terrorism is imminent. It remains so convinced. Even assuming that the respondents and intervenors were
correct, the very nature of the depots where millions of liters of highly flammable and highly volatile products,
regardless of whether or not the composition may cause explosions, has no place in a densely populated area.
Surely, any untoward incident in the oil depots, be it related to terrorism of whatever origin or otherwise, would
definitely cause not only destruction to properties within and among the neighboring communities but certainly
mass deaths and injuries.
Same; Same; It is the removal of the danger to life not the mere subdual of risk of catastrophe, that we saw in and
made us favor Ordinance No. 8027.It is the removal of the danger to life not the mere subdual of risk of
catastrophe, that we saw in and made us favor Ordinance No. 8027. That reason, unaffected by Ordinance No.
8187, compels the affirmance of our Decision in G.R. No. 156052.
Same; Same; The Pandacan oil depot remains a terrorist target even if the contents have been lessened.The same
best interest of the public guides the present decision. The Pandacan oil depot remains a terrorist target even if the
contents have been lessened. In the absence of any convincing reason to persuade this Court that the life, security
and safety of the inhabitants of Manila are no longer put at risk by the presence of the oil depots, we hold that
Ordinance No. 8187 in relation to the Pandacan Terminals is invalid and unconstitutional.
Same; Same; The oil companies shall be given a fresh non-extendible period of forty-five (45) days from notice
within which to submit to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39, Manila an updated comprehensive plan and
relocation schedule. The relocation, in turn, shall be completed not later than six (6) months from the date of their
submission.The periods were given in the Decision in G.R. No. 156052 which became final on 23 April 2009.
Five years have passed, since then. The years of noncompliance may be excused by the swing of local legislative
leads. We now stay the sway and begin a final count. A comprehensive and well-coordinated plan within a specific
time-frame shall, therefore, be observed in the relocation of the Pandacan Terminals. The oil companies shall be
given a fresh non-extendible period of forty-five (45) days from notice within which to submit to the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 39, Manila an updated comprehensive plan and relocation schedule. The relocation, in turn,
shall be completed not later than six months from the date of their submission. Social Justice Society (SJS)
Officers vs. Lim, 742 SCRA 1, G.R. No. 187916 November 25, 2014
G.R. No. 194239.June 16, 2015.*
WEST TOWER CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, on behalf of the Residents of West Tower
Condominium and in representation of Barangay Bangkal, and others, including minors and generations
yet unborn, petitioners, vs. FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, FIRST GEN
CORPORATION and their RESPECTIVE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS, JOHN DOES, and
RICHARD DOES, respondents.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Parties; Real Party-in-Interest; Words and Phrases; As defined, a real party-in-
interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the
avails of the suit.As defined, a real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Generally, every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real parties-in-interest. In other words, the action must be brought by the person who,
by substantive law, possesses the right sought to be enforced. Alternatively, one who has no right or interest to
protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff-in-action for it is jurisprudentially ordained
that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. In the case at bar, there
can be no quibble that the oil leak from the WOPL affected all the condominium unit owners and residents of West
Tower as, in fact, all had to evacuate their units at the wee hours in the morning of July 23, 2010, when the
condominiums electrical power was shut down. Until now, the unit owners and residents of West Tower could still
not return to their condominium units. Thus, there is no gainsaying that the residents of West Tower are real
parties-in-interest. There can also be no denying that West Tower Corp. represents the common interest of its unit
owners and residents, and has the legal standing to file and pursue the instant petition. While a condominium
corporation has limited powers under RA 4726, otherwise known as The Condominium Act, it is empowered to
pursue actions in behalf of its members. In the instant case, the condominium corporation is the management body
of West Tower and deals with everything that may affect some or all of the condominium unit owners or users.
Constitutional Law; Writ of Kalikasan; The filing of a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan under Sec. 1,
Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases does not require that a petitioner be directly affected by
an environmental disaster. The rule clearly allows juridical persons to file the petition on behalf of persons whose
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation.Anent the
propriety of including the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, Kilusang Makabansang Ekonomiya,
Inc., Womens Business Council of the Philippines, Inc., Junior Chambers International Philippines, Inc.-San Juan
Chapter, Zonta Club of Makati Ayala Foundations, and the Consolidated Mansions Condominium Corporation, as
petitioners in the case, the Court already granted their intervention in the present controversy in the adverted July
30, 2013 Resolution. This is so considering that the filing of a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan
under Sec. 1, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases does not require that a petitioner be
directly affected by an environmental disaster. The rule clearly allows juridical persons to file the petition on
behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with
violation. Thus, as parties to the case, they are entitled to be furnished copies of all the submissions to the Court,
including the periodic reports of FPIC and the results of the evaluations and tests conducted on the WOPL.
Department of Energy; Jurisdiction; The Department of Energy (DOE) is empowered by Sec. 12(b)(1), Republic
Act (RA) No. 7638 to formulate and implement policies for the efficient and economical distribution,
transportation, and storage of petroleum, coal, natural gas.The DOE is specially equipped to consider FPICs
proper implementation and compliance with its PIMS and to evaluate the result of the various tests conducted on
the pipeline. The DOE is empowered by Sec. 12(b)(1), RA 7638 to formulate and implement policies for the
efficient and economical distribution, transportation, and storage of petroleum, coal, natural gas. Thus, it cannot
be gainsaid that the DOE possesses technical knowledge and special expertise with respect to practices in the
transportation of oil through pipelines.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; In a host of cases, this Court held that when the adjudication of a controversy
requires the resolution of issues within the expertise of an administrative body, such issues must be investigated
and resolved by the administrative body equipped with the specialized knowledge and the technical expertise.It
is notable that the DOE did not only limit itself to the knowledge and proficiency available within its offices, it has
also rallied around the assistance of pertinent bureaus of the other administrative agencies: the ITDI of the DOST,
which is mandated to undertake technical services including standards, analytical and calibration services; the
MIRDC, also of the DOST, which is the sole government entity directly supporting the metals and engineering
industry; the EMB of the DENR, the agency mandated to implement, among others, RA 6969 (Toxic Substances
and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990) and RA 9275 (Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004); and
the BOD of the DPWH, which is mandated to conduct, supervise, and review the technical design aspects of
projects of government agencies. The specialized knowledge and expertise of the foregoing agencies must,
therefore, be availed of to arrive at a judicious decision on the propriety of allowing the immediate resumption of
the WOPLs operation. In a host of cases, this Court held that when the adjudication of a controversy requires the
resolution of issues within the expertise of an administrative body, such issues must be investigated and resolved
by the administrative body equipped with the specialized knowledge and the technical expertise. Hence, the
courts, although they may have jurisdiction and power to decide cases, can utilize the findings and
recommendations of the administrative agency on questions that demand the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine
technical and intricate matters of fact.
Same; Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases; Precautionary Principle; Section 1, Rule 20 of A.M. No. 09-6-
8-SC or the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, on the Precautionary Principle, provides that [w]hen
there is lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity and environmental
effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving the case before it.Section 1, Rule 20 of
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC or the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, on the Precautionary Principle, provides
that [w]hen there is lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity and
environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving the case before it. According
to the dissent, the directive for the repetition of the tests is based on speculations, justified by the application of
said principle. This, however, is not the case. Nowhere did We apply the precautionary principle in deciding the
issue on the WOPLs structural integrity. The precautionary principle only applies when the link between the
cause, that is the human activity sought to be inhibited, and the effect, that is the damage to the environment,
cannot be established with full scientific certainty. Here, however, such absence of a link is not an issue. Detecting
the existence of a leak or the presence of defects in the WOPL, which is the issue in the case at bar, is different
from determining whether the spillage of hazardous materials into the surroundings will cause environmental
damage or will harm human health or that of other organisms. As a matter of fact, the petroleum leak and the harm
that it caused to the environment and to the residents of the affected areas is not even questioned by FPIC.
Same; Any delay in the reopening of the White Oil Pipeline (WOPL) System, if said delay is for the purpose of
making sure that the pipeline is commercially viable, is better than hastily allowing its reopening without an
extensive check on its structural integrity when experience shows that there were and may still be flaws in the
pipeline.Any delay in the reopening of the WOPL, if said delay is for the purpose of making sure that the
pipeline is commercially viable, is better than hastily allowing its reopening without an extensive check on its
structural integrity when experience shows that there were and may still be flaws in the pipeline. Even the DOE,
the agency tasked to oversee the supply and distribution of petroleum in the country, is well aware of this and even
recommended the checking of the patched portions of the pipeline, among others. In this regard, the Court deems
it best to take the necessary safeguards, which are not similar to applying the precautionary principle as previously
explained, in order to prevent a similar incident from happening in the future.
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases; Special Trust Fund; A reading of the petition and the motion for
partial reconsideration readily reveals that the prayer is for the creation of a trust fund for similar future
contingencies. This is clearly outside the limited purpose of a special trust fund under the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases, which is to rehabilitate or restore the environment that has presumably already suffered.A
reading of the petition and the motion for partial reconsideration readily reveals that the prayer is for the creation
of a trust fund for similar future contingencies. This is clearly outside the limited purpose of a special trust fund
under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, which is to rehabilitate or restore the environment that has
presumably already suffered. Hence, the Court affirms with concurrence the observation of the appellate court that
the prayer is but a claim for damages, which is prohibited by the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. As
such, the Court is of the considered view that the creation of a special trust fund is misplaced. The present ruling
on petitioners prayer for the creation of a special trust fund in the instant recourse, however, is without prejudice
to the judgment/s that may be rendered in the civil and/or criminal cases filed by petitioners arising from the same
incident if the payment of damages is found warranted.
Same; Damages; Writ of Kalikasan; In a petition for a writ of kalikasan, the Supreme Court (SC) cannot grant the
award of damages to individual petitioners under Rule 7, Sec. 15(e) of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases.On the last issue of the liability of FPIC, FGC and their respective directors and officers, the CA found
FGC not liable under the TEPO and, without prejudice to the outcome of the civil case (Civil Case No. 11-256,
RTC, Branch 58 in Makati City) and criminal complaint (Complaint-Affidavit for Reckless Imprudence, Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor of Makati City) filed against them, the individual directors and officers of FPIC and
FGC are not liable in their individual capacities. The Court will refrain from ruling on the finding of the CA that
the individual directors and officers of FPIC and FGC are not liable due to the explicit rule in the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental cases that in a petition for a writ of kalikasan, the Court cannot grant the award of
damages to individual petitioners under Rule 7, Sec. 15(e) of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. As
duly noted by the CA, the civil case and criminal complaint filed by petitioners against respondents are the proper
proceedings to ventilate and determine the individual liability of respondents, if any, on their exercise of corporate
powers and the management of FPIC relative to the dire environmental impact of the dumping of petroleum
products stemming from the leak in the WOPL in Barangay Bangkal, Makati City. Hence, the Court will not rule
on the alleged liability on the part of the FPIC and FGC officials which can, however, be properly resolved in the
civil and criminal cases now pending against them.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources; Jurisdiction; Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) is the government agency tasked to implement the state policy of maintaining a sound
ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment and to promulgate rules and
regulations for the control of water, air, and land pollution.The CAs resolution on petitioners September 9,
2011 Manifestation (Re: Current Developments) with Omnibus Motion on the remediation plan in Barangay
Bangkal by directing the Inter-Agency Committee on Environmental Health to submit its evaluation of the said
plan prepared by CH2M Philippines, Inc., for FPIC to strictly comply with the stipulations embodied in the
permits issued by the DENR, and to get a certification from the DENR of its compliance thereto is well-taken.
DENR is the government agency tasked to implement the state policy of maintaining a sound ecological balance
and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment and to promulgate rules and regulations for the
control of water, air, and land pollution. It is indubitable that the DENR has jurisdiction in overseeing and
supervising the environmental remediation of Barangay Bangkal, which is adversely affected by the leak in the
WOPL in 2010. West Tower Condominium Corporation vs. First Philippine Industrial Corporation, 758 SCRA
292, G.R. No. 194239 June 16, 2015

G.R. No. 179918.September 8, 2010.*
SHELL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION B.V., represented by its Managing Director, Jeremy Cliff,
petitioner, vs. EFREN JALOS, JOVEN CAMPANG, ARNALDO MIJARES, et al
Administrative Agencies; Definition of Pollution.Although the complaint of Jalos, et al. does not use the word
pollution in describing the cause of the alleged fish decline in the Mindoro Sea, it is unmistakable based on their
allegations that Shells pipeline produced some kind of poison or emission that drove the fish away from the
coastal areas. While the complaint did not specifically attribute to Shell any specific act of pollution, it alleged
that the pipeline greatly affected biogenically hard-structured communities such as coral reefs and led [to] stress
to the marine life in the Mindoro Sea. This constitutes pollution as defined by law. Section 2(a) of P.D. 984
defines pollution as any alteration of the physical, chemical and biological properties of any water x x x as will
or is likely to create or render such water x x x harmful, detrimental or injurious to public health, safety or welfare
or which will adversely affect their utilization for domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational or
other legitimate purposes.
Same; Jurisdiction; National Pollution and Control Commission transferred to the Pollution Adjudication Board
(PAB); Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) empowered to determine the location, magnitude, extent, severity,
causes and effects of water pollution; The Pollution Adjudication Boards (PABs) final decisions may be reviewed
by the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.Executive Order 192 (1987) transferred to the PAB the powers
and functions of the National Pollution and Control Commission provided in R.A. 3931, as amended by P.D. 984.
These empowered the PAB to [d]etermine the location, magnitude, extent, severity, causes and effects of water
pollution. Among its functions is to [s]erve as arbitrator for the determination of reparation, or restitution of the
damages and losses resulting from pollution. In this regard, the PAB has the power to conduct hearings, impose
penalties for violation of P.D. 984, and issue writs of execution to enforce its orders and decisions. The PABs final
decisions may be reviewed by the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Same; Same; Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies; Resort must first be made to the Pollution Adjudication
Board (PAB) which is the agency possessed of expertise in determining pollution-related matters before filing the
complaint before the regular courts.Jalos, et al. had, therefore, an administrative recourse before filing their
complaint with the regular courts. The laws creating the PAB and vesting it with powers are wise. The definition
of the term pollution itself connotes the need for specialized knowledge and skills, technical and scientific, in
determining the presence, the cause, and the effects of pollution. These knowledge and skills are not within the
competence of ordinary courts. Consequently, resort must first be made to the PAB, which is the agency possessed
of expertise in determining pollution-related matters.
Remedial Law; Actions; Cause of Action; A cause of action is the wrongful act or omission committed by the
defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff; Elements of a Cause of Action.A cause of action is
the wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff. Its
elements consist of: (1) a right existing in favor of the plaintiff, (2) a duty on the part of the defendant to respect
the plaintiffs right, and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of such right. To sustain a motion to
dismiss for lack of cause of action, however, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist and
not only that the claim was defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.
Same; Same; Same; The test for determining the sufficiency of a cause of action rests on whether the complaint
alleges facts which, if true, would justify the relief demanded.The construction and operation of the pipeline
may, in itself, be a wrongful act that could be the basis of Jalos, et al.s cause of action. The rules do not require
that the complaint establish in detail the causal link between the construction and operation of the pipeline, on the
one hand, and the fish decline and loss of income, on the other hand, it being sufficient that the complaint states
the ultimate facts on which it bases its claim for relief. The test for determining the sufficiency of a cause of action
rests on whether the complaint alleges facts which, if true, would justify the relief demanded. In this case, a valid
judgment for damages can be made in favor of Jalos, et al., if the construction and operation of the pipeline indeed
caused fish decline and eventually led to the fishermens loss of income, as alleged in the complaint.
Same; Same; Same; Shells primary obligation under the contract is not to represent the Philippine government for
the purpose of transacting business with third persons; Its contractual commitment is to develop and manage
petroleum operations on behalf of the State.Shells main undertaking under Service Contract 38 is to [p]erform
all petroleum operations and provide all necessary technology and finance as well as other connected services to
the Philippine government. As defined under the contract, petroleum operation means the searching for and
obtaining Petroleum within the Philippines, including the transportation, storage, handling and sale of
petroleum whether for export or domestic consumption. Shells primary obligation under the contract is not to
represent the Philippine government for the purpose of transacting business with third persons. Rather, its
contractual commitment is to develop and manage petroleum operations on behalf of the State. Shell Philippines
Exploration B.V. vs. Jalos, 630 SCRA 399, G.R. No. 179918 September 8, 2010
G.R. No. 206510.September 16, 2014.*
MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO, D.D., Vicar Apostolic of Puerto Princesa, et al vs. SCOTT H. SWIFT, in
his capacity as Commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet, et al
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Locus Standi; Words and Phrases; Locus standi is a right of appearance in a
court of justice on a given question.Locus standi is a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given
question. Specifically, it is a partys personal and substantial interest in a case where he has sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the act being challenged, and calls for more than just a generalized grievance.
However, the rule on standing is a procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for nontraditional plaintiffs like
ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the subject matter of
the controversy is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public
interest.
Constitutional Law; Balance and Healthful Ecology; In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA
792 (1993), the Supreme Court (SC) recognized the public right of citizens to a balanced and healthful ecology
which, for the first time in our constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law.In the
landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792 (1993), we recognized the public right of citizens to a
balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in
the fundamental law. We declared that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in the
Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the
inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational implications. Such
right carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Class Suit; On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors
in Oposa, this Court ruled that not only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of
environmental rights, they can do so in representation of their own and future generations.On the novel element
in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors in Oposa, this Court ruled that not only do ordinary citizens have
legal standing to sue for the enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so in representation of their own and
future generations. Thus:
Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no
difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations,
file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept
of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a
right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the rhythm and harmony of nature. Nature means the created world in
its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,
management, renewal and conservation of the countrys forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore
areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably
accessible to the present as well as future generations. Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the
next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little
differently, the minors assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.
Constitutional Law; State Immunity from Suit; This traditional rule of State immunity which exempts a State from
being sued in the courts of another State without the formers consent or waiver has evolved into a restrictive
doctrine which distinguishes sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) from private, commercial and
proprietary acts (jure gestionis).This traditional rule of State immunity which exempts a State from being sued
in the courts of another State without the formers consent or waiver has evolved into a restrictive doctrine which
distinguishes sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) from private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure
gestionis). Under the restrictive rule of State immunity, State immunity extends only to acts jure imperii. The
restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions
of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs.
Same; International Law; International Law of the Sea; Words and Phrases; The international law of the sea is
generally defined as a body of treaty rules and customary norms governing the uses of the sea, the exploitation of
its resources, and the exercise of jurisdiction over maritime regimes.The international law of the sea is generally
defined as a body of treaty rules and customary norms governing the uses of the sea, the exploitation of its
resources, and the exercise of jurisdiction over maritime regimes. It is a branch of public international law,
regulating the relations of states with respect to the uses of the oceans. The UNCLOS is a multilateral treaty
which was opened for signature on December 10, 1982 at Montego Bay, Jamaica. It was ratified by the Philippines
in 1984 but came into force on November 16, 1994 upon the submission of the 60th ratification.
Same; Same; Same; United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; The United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) gives to the coastal State sovereign rights in varying degrees over the different zones
of the sea which are: 1) internal waters, 2) territorial sea, 3) contiguous zone, 4) exclusive economic zone, and 5)
the high seas. It also gives coastal States more or less jurisdiction over foreign vessels depending on where the
vessel is located.The UNCLOS is a product of international negotiation that seeks to balance State sovereignty
(mare clausum) and the principle of freedom of the high seas (mare liberum). The freedom to use the worlds
marine waters is one of the oldest customary principles of international law. The UNCLOS gives to the coastal
State sovereign rights in varying degrees over the different zones of the sea which are: 1) internal waters, 2)
territorial sea, 3) contiguous zone, 4) exclusive economic zone, and 5) the high seas. It also gives coastal States
more or less jurisdiction over foreign vessels depending on where the vessel is located.
Same; Same; State Immunity from Suit; Visiting Forces Agreement; Writ of Kalikasan; The waiver of State
immunity under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil
actions such as the present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan.The VFA is an agreement which defines
the treatment of United States troops and personnel visiting the Philippines to promote common security
interests between the US and the Philippines in the region. It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of
military personnel, and further defines the rights of the United States and the Philippine government in the matter
of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment, materials and
supplies.
The invocation of US federal tort laws and even common law is thus improper considering that it is the VFA
which governs disputes involving US military ships and crew navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of the
objectives of the agreement. As it is, the waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal
jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact,
it can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of the Rules that a criminal case against a person charged with a
violation of an environmental law is to be filed separately: SEC. 17. Institution of separate actions.The filing of
a petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal or
administrative actions.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; A ruling on the application or non-application of criminal jurisdiction provisions
of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) to US personnel who may be found responsible for the grounding of the
USS Guardian, would be premature and beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan.In any case, it
is our considered view that a ruling on the application or non-application of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the
VFA to US personnel who may be found responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature
and beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan. We also find it unnecessary at this point to determine
whether such waiver of State immunity is indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant damages which have
resulted from the violation of environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of damages, including the
collection of administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a separate civil suit or that deemed instituted with the
criminal action charging the same violation of an environmental law.
Same; Same; Foreign Relations; It is settled that the conduct of the foreign relations of our government is
committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative the political departments of the government,
and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or
decision.A rehabilitation or restoration program to be implemented at the cost of the violator is also a major
relief that may be obtained under a judgment rendered in a citizens suit under the Rules, viz.: RULE 5 SECTION
1. Reliefs in a citizen suit.If warranted, the court may grant to the plaintiff proper reliefs which shall include the
protection, preservation or rehabilitation of the environment and the payment of attorneys fees, costs of suit and
other litigation expenses. It may also require the violator to submit a program of rehabilitation or restoration of the
environment, the costs of which shall be borne by the violator, or to contribute to a special trust fund for that
purpose subject to the control of the court. In the light of the foregoing, the Court defers to the Executive Branch
on the matter of compensation and rehabilitation measures through diplomatic channels. Resolution of these issues
impinges on our relations with another State in the context of common security interests under the VFA. It is
settled that [t]he conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the
executive and legislative the political departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be
done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision. Arigo vs. Swift, 735
SCRA 102, G.R. No. 206510 September 16, 2014
G.R. No. 180771.April 21, 2015.*
RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PROTECTED SEASCAPE TAON STRAIT, et al, vs.
SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE), et al
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Parties; Locus Standi; Citizen Suits; Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases; The Court passed the landmark Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, which allow for a citizen
suit, and permit any Filipino citizen to file an action before our courts for violations of our environmental laws.
It had been suggested by animal rights advocates and environmentalists that not only natural and juridical persons
should be given legal standing because of the difficulty for persons, who cannot show that they by themselves are
real parties-in-interests, to bring actions in representation of these animals or inanimate objects. For this reason,
many environmental cases have been dismissed for failure of the petitioner to show that he/she would be directly
injured or affected by the outcome of the case. However, in our jurisdiction, locus standi in environmental cases
has been given a more liberalized approach. While developments in Philippine legal theory and jurisprudence have
not progressed as far as Justice Douglass paradigm of legal standing for inanimate objects, the current trend
moves towards simplification of procedures and facilitating court access in environmental cases. Recently, the
Court passed the landmark Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, which allow for a citizen suit, and
permit any Filipino citizen to file an action before our courts for violations of our environmental laws.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Environmental Cases; Even before the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases became effective, the Supreme Court (SC) had already taken a permissive position on the issue of locus
standi in environmental cases.Even before the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases became effective,
this Court had already taken a permissive position on the issue of locus standi in environmental cases. In Oposa v.
Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792 (1993), we allowed the suit to be brought in the name of generations yet unborn
based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
concerned. Furthermore, we said that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, a right that does not even
need to be stated in our Constitution as it is assumed to exist from the inception of humankind, carries with it the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. In light of the foregoing, the need to give the Resident
Marine Mammals legal standing has been eliminated by our Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward
of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws. It is worth noting here that the Stewards are joined as
real parties in the Petition and not just in representation of the named cetacean species. The Stewards, Ramos and
Eisma-Osorio, having shown in their petition that there may be possible violations of laws concerning the habitat
of the Resident Marine Mammals, are therefore declared to possess the legal standing to file this petition.
Same; Same; Same; Unwilling Co-petitioners; Impleading the former President as an unwilling co-petitioner, for
an act she made in the performance of the functions of her office, is contrary to the public policy against
embroiling the President in suits, to assure the exercise of Presidential duties and functions free from any
hindrance or distraction, considering that being the Chief Executive of the Government is a job that, aside from
requiring all of the office holders time, also demands undivided attention.Section 10, Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court provides: Sec. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff.If the consent of any party who should be joined as plaintiff can
not be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint. Under the
foregoing rule, when the consent of a party who should be joined as a plaintiff cannot be obtained, he or she may
be made a party defendant to the case. This will put the unwilling party under the jurisdiction of the Court, which
can properly implead him or her through its processes. The unwilling partys name cannot be simply included in a
petition, without his or her knowledge and consent, as such would be a denial of due process. Moreover, the
reason cited by the petitioners Stewards for including former President Macapagal-Arroyo in their petition, is not
sufficient to implead her as an unwilling co-petitioner. Impleading the former President as an unwilling co-
petitioner, for an act she made in the performance of the functions of her office, is contrary to the public policy
against embroiling the President in suits, to assure the exercise of Presidential duties and functions free from any
hindrance or distraction, considering that being the Chief Executive of the Government is a job that, aside from
requiring all of the office holders time, also demands undivided attention. Therefore, former President
Macapagal-Arroyo cannot be impleaded as one of the petitioners in this suit. Thus, her name is stricken off the
title of this case.
Service Contracts; In La Bugal-Blaan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos, 445 SCRA 1 (2004), the Supreme Court
(SC) held that the deletion of the words service contracts in the 1987 Constitution did not amount to a ban on
them per se.This Court has previously settled the issue of whether service contracts are still allowed under the
1987 Constitution. In La Bugal-Blaan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos, 445 SCRA 1 (2004), we held that the
deletion of the words service contracts in the 1987 Constitution did not amount to a ban on them per se. In fact,
in that decision, we quoted in length, portions of the deliberations of the members of the Constitutional
Commission (ConCom) to show that in deliberating on paragraph 4, Section 2, Article XII, they were actually
referring to service contracts as understood in the 1973 Constitution, albeit with safety measures to eliminate or
minimize the abuses prevalent during the martial law regime.
Natural Resources; Oil Explorations; Oil Exploration and Development Act of 1972; The disposition, exploration,
development, exploitation, and utilization of indigenous petroleum in the Philippines are governed by Presidential
Decree (PD) No. 87 or the Oil Exploration and Development Act of 1972.The disposition, exploration,
development, exploitation, and utilization of indigenous petroleum in the Philippines are governed by Presidential
Decree No. 87 or the Oil Exploration and Development Act of 1972. This was enacted by then President
Ferdinand Marcos to promote the discovery and production of indigenous petroleum through the utilization of
government and/or local or foreign private resources to yield the maximum benefit to the Filipino people and the
revenues to the Philippine Government. Contrary to the petitioners argument, Presidential Decree No. 87,
although enacted in 1972, before the adoption of the 1987 Constitution, remains to be a valid law unless otherwise
repealed.
Statutory Construction; In cases where the statute seems to be in conflict with the Constitution, but a construction
that it is in harmony with the Constitution is also possible, that construction should be preferred.In cases where
the statute seems to be in conflict with the Constitution, but a construction that it is in harmony with the
Constitution is also possible, that construction should be preferred. This Court, in Pangandaman v. Commission on
Elections, 319 SCRA 283 (1999), expounding on this point, pronounced: It is a basic precept in statutory
construction that a statute should be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution and that the spirit, rather than the
letter of the law determines its construction; for that reason, a statute must be read according to its spirit and intent.
x x x. (Citation omitted) Consequently, we find no merit in petitioners contention that SC-46 is prohibited on the
ground that there is no general law prescribing the standard or uniform terms, conditions, and requirements for
service contracts involving oil exploration and extraction.
Constitutional Law; Presidency; Oil Explorations; Natural Resources; Paragraph 4, Section 2, Article XII of the
1987 Constitution requires that the President himself enter into any service contract for the exploration of
petroleum.Paragraph 4, Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution requires that the President himself enter
into any service contract for the exploration of petroleum. SC-46 appeared to have been entered into and signed
only by the DOE through its then Secretary, Vicente S. Perez, Jr., contrary to the said constitutional requirement.
Moreover, public respondents have neither shown nor alleged that Congress was subsequently notified of the
execution of such contract. Public respondents implied argument that based on the alter ego principle, their acts
are also that of then President Macapagal-Arroyos, cannot apply in this case. In Joson v. Torres, 290 SCRA 279
(1998), we explained the concept of the alter ego principle or the doctrine of qualified political agency and its limit
in this wise: Under this doctrine, which recognizes the establishment of a single executive, all executive and
administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive
departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is
required by the Constitution or law to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act
personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and
through the executive departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments, performed and
promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.
Same; Balanced and Healthful Ecology; National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992; Natural
Resources; True to the constitutional policy that the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature, Congress enacted the National
Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992 (NIPAS Act) to secure the perpetual existence of all native plants
and animals through the establishment of a comprehensive system of integrated protected areas.True to the
constitutional policy that the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature, Congress enacted the NIPAS Act to secure the
perpetual existence of all native plants and animals through the establishment of a comprehensive system of
integrated protected areas. These areas possess common ecological values that were incorporated into a holistic
plan representative of our natural heritage. The system encompasses outstandingly remarkable areas and
biologically important public lands that are habitats of rare and endangered species of plants and animals,
biogeographic zones and related ecosystems, whether terrestrial, wetland, or marine. It classifies and administers
all the designated protected areas to maintain essential ecological processes and life-support systems, to preserve
genetic diversity, to ensure sustainable use of resources found therein, and to maintain their natural conditions to
the greatest extent possible. The following categories of protected areas were established under the NIPAS Act: a.
Strict nature reserve; b. Natural park; c. Natural monument; d. Wildlife sanctuary; e. Protected landscapes and
seascapes; f. Resource reserve; g. Natural biotic areas; and h. Other categories established by law, conventions or
international agreements which the Philippine Government is a signatory.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Under Section 4 of the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992
(NIPAS Act), a protected area refers to portions of land and water, set aside due to their unique physical and
biological significance, managed to enhance biological diversity and protected against human exploitation.
Under Section 4 of the NIPAS Act, a protected area refers to portions of land and water, set aside due to their
unique physical and biological significance, managed to enhance biological diversity and protected against human
exploitation. The Taon Strait, pursuant to Proclamation No. 1234, was set aside and declared a protected area
under the category of Protected Seascape. The NIPAS Act defines a Protected Seascape to be an area of national
significance characterized by the harmonious interaction of man and land while providing opportunities for public
enjoyment through recreation and tourism within the normal lifestyle and economic activity of this areas; thus a
management plan for each area must be designed to protect and enhance the permanent preservation of its natural
conditions. Consistent with this endeavor is the requirement that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) be
made prior to undertaking any activity outside the scope of the management plan. Unless an ECC under the EIA
system is obtained, no activity inconsistent with the goals of the NIPAS Act shall be implemented.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Environmentally Critical Area; Environmental Impact Statement System; The
Environmental Impact Statement System (EISS) prohibits any person, partnership or corporation from undertaking
or operating any declared environmentally critical project or areas without first securing an Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued by the President or his duly authorized representative.The Environmental
Impact Statement System (EISS) was established in 1978 under Presidential Decree No. 1586. It prohibits any
person, partnership or corporation from undertaking or operating any declared environmentally critical project or
areas without first securing an ECC issued by the President or his duly authorized representative. Pursuant to the
EISS, which called for the proper management of environmentally critical areas, Proclamation No. 2146 was
enacted, identifying the areas and types of projects to be considered as environmentally critical and within the
scope of the EISS, while DENR Administrative Order No. 2003-30 provided for its Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR).
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) Administrative Order No. 2003-30 defines an environmentally critical area as an area delineated as
environmentally sensitive such that significant environmental impacts are expected if certain types of proposed
projects or programs are located, developed, or implemented in it; thus, before a project, which is any activity,
regardless of scale or magnitude, which may have significant impact on the environment, is undertaken in it, such
project must undergo an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to evaluate and predict the likely impacts of all
its stages on the environment.DENR Administrative Order No. 2003-30 defines an environmentally critical area
as an area delineated as environmentally sensitive such that significant environmental impacts are expected if
certain types of proposed projects or programs are located, developed, or implemented in it; thus, before a
project, which is any activity, regardless of scale or magnitude, which may have significant impact on the
environment, is undertaken in it, such project must undergo an EIA to evaluate and predict the likely impacts of
all its stages on the environment. An EIA is described in detail as follows: h. Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) process that involves evaluating and predicting the likely impacts of a project (including cumulative
impacts) on the environment during construction, commissioning, operation and abandonment. It also includes
designing appropriate preventive, mitigating and enhancement measures addressing these consequences to protect
the environment and the communitys welfare. The process is undertaken by, among others, the project proponent
and/or EIA Consultant, EMB, a Review Committee, affected communities and other stakeholders.
Same; Same; Same; Natural Resources; Service Contracts; Oil Explorations; While Presidential Decree (PD) No.
87 may serve as the general law upon which a service contract for petroleum exploration and extraction may be
authorized, the exploitation and utilization of this energy resource in the present case may be allowed only through
a law passed by Congress, since the Taon Strait is a National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) area.
SC-46 was not executed for the mere purpose of gathering information on the possible energy resources in the
Taon Strait as it also provides for the parties rights and obligations relating to extraction and petroleum
production should oil in commercial quantities be found to exist in the area. While Presidential Decree No. 87 may
serve as the general law upon which a service contract for petroleum exploration and extraction may be
authorized, the exploitation and utilization of this energy resource in the present case may be allowed only through
a law passed by Congress, since the Taon Strait is a NIPAS area. Since there is no such law specifically allowing
oil exploration and/or extraction in the Taon Strait, no energy resource exploitation and utilization may be done
in said protected seascape. Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Taon Strait vs. Reyes, 756
SCRA 513, G.R. No. 181527 April 21, 2015
G.R. No. 101083. July 30, 1993.*
JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all surnamed OPOSA, minors, et l, vs. THE
HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, et al
Remedial Law; Actions; Class Suit; The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just
to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines; All the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section
12 Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present.Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 90-777 as a class suit.
The original defendant and the present respondents did not take issue with this matter. Nevertheless, We hereby
rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general
interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it
becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court. We likewise declare that the
plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests.
Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court
are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the latter being but an incident to the former.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Petitioners personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be
based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
concerned.This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert that they represent
their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for
others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of
the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right
to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the rhythm
and harmony of nature.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The minors assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes at the
same time the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generation to come.
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full
enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors assertion of their right to a
sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of
that right for the generations to come.
Constitutional Law; The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right; The right to a balanced and
healthful ecology.The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal rightthe right to a balanced and
healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nations constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the
fundamental law.
Same; Same; The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment.The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to
refrain from impairing the environment.
Same; Same; The right of the petitioners to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENRs duty to
protect and advance the said right.Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced
and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENRs dutyunder its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions
under E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987to protect and advance the said right.
Same; Political Question; The political question doctrine is no longer the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise
of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or
review.The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 cannot be said to raise a political question. Policy
formulation or determination by the executive or legislative branches of Government is not squarely put in issue.
What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and expressed in
legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer the insurmountable
obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions
from judicial inquiry or review.
Same; Contracts; Non-impairment Clause; A timber license is not a contract, property or a property right protected
by the due process clause of the Constitution.Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by
executive action. It is not a contract, property or a property right protected by the due process clause of the
Constitution.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or
property rights.A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a
contract between the authority, federal, state, or municipal, granting it and the person to whom it is granted;
neither is it property or a property right, nor does it create a vested right; nor is it taxation (37 C.J. 168). Thus, this
Court held that the granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property rights.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked.
Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause, cannot be invoked.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state.In
short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state.
G.R. Nos. 171947-48.December 18, 2008.*
METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,et al, vs. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF
MANILA BAY, et al
Remedial Law; Mandamus; Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial duty;
Mandamus is available to compel action, when refused, on matters involving discretion, but not to direct the
exercise of judgment or discretion one way or the other.The writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a
ministerial duty. A ministerial duty is one that requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment. It
connotes an act in which nothing is left to the discretion of the person executing it. It is a simple, definite duty
arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist and imposed by law. Mandamus is available to compel
action, when refused, on matters involving discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion one
way or the other.
Same; Same; Environmental Law; The Metropolitan Manila Development Authoritys (MMDAs) duty to put up
an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other alternative
garbage disposal system is ministerial, its duty being a statutory imposition.We wish to state that petitioners
obligation to perform their duties as defined by law, on one hand, and how they are to carry out such duties, on the
other, are two different concepts. While the implementation of the MMDAs 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. We said so in Social Justice Society v. Atienza, 517 SCRA 657
(2007), in which the Court directed the City of Manila to enforce, as a matter of ministerial duty, its Ordinance No.
8027 directing the three big local oil players to cease and desist from operating their business in the so-called
Pandacan Terminals within six months from the effectivity of the ordinance. But to illustrate with respect to the
instant case, the MMDAs duty to put up an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid
disposal as well as other alternative garbage disposal systems is ministerial, its duty being a statutory imposition.
The MMDAs duty in this regard is spelled out in Sec. 3(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 7924 creating the MMDA.
Same; Same; Same; The duty of putting up a proper waste disposal system cannot be characterized as
discretionary, for, as earlier stated, discretion presupposes the power or right given by law to public functionaries
to act officially according to their judgment or conscience.The MMDAs duty in the area of solid waste disposal,
as may be noted, is set forth not only in the Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its charter as well.
This duty of putting up a proper waste disposal system cannot be characterized as discretionary, for, as earlier
stated, discretion presupposes the power or right given by law to public functionaries to act officially according to
their judgment or conscience. A discretionary duty is one that allows a person to exercise judgment and choose to
perform or not to perform. Any suggestion that the MMDA has the option whether or not to perform its solid
waste disposal-related duties ought to be dismissed for want of legal basis.
Same; Same; Same; 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.A perusal of other petitioners respective charters or like enabling statutes and pertinent laws would
yield this conclusion: 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.
Same; Same; Same; Section 17 of PD 1152 does not in any way state that the government agencies concerned
ought to confine themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning operations when a specific pollution
incident occurs.Respondents are correct. For one thing, said Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the
government agencies concerned ought to confine themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning operations
when a specific pollution incident occurs. On the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a
specific pollution incident, as long as water quality has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely
affect its best usage. This section, to stress, commands concerned government agencies, when appropriate, to
take such measures as may be necessary to meet the prescribed water quality standards. In fine, the underlying
duty to upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the occurrence of any pollution incident.
Same; Same; Same; The complementary Sec. 17 of the Environment Code comes into play and the specific duties
of the agencies to clean up come in even if there are no pollution incidents staring at them.A perusal of Sec. 20
of the Environment Code, as couched, indicates that it is properly applicable to a specific situation in which the
pollution is caused by polluters who fail to clean up the mess they left behind. In such instance, the concerned
government agencies shall undertake the cleanup work for the polluters account. Petitioners assertion, that they
have to perform cleanup operations in the Manila Bay only when there is a water pollution incident and the erring
polluters do not undertake the containment, removal, and cleanup operations, is quite off mark. As earlier
discussed, the complementary Sec. 17 of the Environment Code comes into play and the specific duties of the
agencies to clean up come in even if there are no pollution incidents staring at them. Petitioners, thus, cannot
plausibly invoke and hide behind Sec. 20 of PD 1152 or Sec. 16 of RA 9275 on the pretext that their cleanup
mandate depends on the happening of a specific pollution incident.
Same; Same; Same; Sec. 16 of RA 9275, previously Sec. 20 of PD 1152, covers for all intents and purposes a
general cleanup situation.Not to be ignored of course is the reality that the government agencies concerned are
so undermanned that it would be almost impossible to apprehend the numerous polluters of the Manila Bay. It may
perhaps not be amiss to say that the apprehension, if any, of the Manila Bay polluters has been few and far
between. Hence, practically nobody has been required to contain, remove, or clean up a given water pollution
incident. In this kind of setting, it behooves the Government to step in and undertake cleanup operations. Thus,
Sec. 16 of RA 9275, previously Sec. 20 of PD 1152, covers for all intents and purposes a general cleanup situation.
Same; Same; Same; Different government agencies and instrumentalities cannot shirk from their mandates, they
must perform their basic functions in cleaning up and rehabilitating the Manila Bay.The era of delays,
procrastination, and ad hoc measures is over. Petitioners must transcend their limitations, real or imaginary, and
buckle down to work before the problem at hand becomes unmanageable. Thus, we must reiterate that different
government agencies and instrumentalities cannot shirk from their mandates; they must perform their basic
functions in cleaning up and rehabilitating the Manila Bay. We are disturbed by petitioners hiding behind two
untenable claims: (1) that there ought to be a specific pollution incident before they are required to act; and (2) that
the cleanup of the bay is a discretionary duty.
Environmental Law; Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal provision specifically prodding petitioners
to clean up the bay, they and the men and women representing them cannot escape their obligation to future
generations of Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible.So it was
that in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792 (1993), the Court stated that the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology need not even be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental
importance with intergenerational implications. Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal provision
specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay, they and the men and women representing them cannot
escape their obligation to future generations of Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as
humanly as possible. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust reposed in them. Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, 574 SCRA 661, G.R. Nos. 171947-48 December
18, 2008
G.R. Nos. 171947-48.February 15, 2011.*
METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,et al, vs. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF
MANILA BAY, et al
Courts; Separation of Powers; Mandamus; The issuance of subsequent resolutions by the Court setting time frames
be set for the executive agencies to perform their assigned tasks pursuant to earlier decision of the Court is simply
an exercise of judicial power under Art. VIII of the Constitution, because the execution of the Decision is but an
integral part of the adjudicative function of the Court, not an encroachment by the Court over executive powers
and functions.The case is now in the execution phase of the final and executory December 18, 2008 Decision.
The Manila Bay Advisory Committee was created to receive and evaluate the quarterly progressive reports on the
activities undertaken by the agencies in accordance with said decision and to monitor the execution phase. In the
absence of specific completion periods, the Committee recommended that time frames be set for the agencies to
perform their assigned tasks. This may be viewed as an encroachment over the powers and functions of the
Executive Branch headed by the President of the Philippines. This view is misplaced. The issuance of subsequent
resolutions by the Court is simply an exercise of judicial power under Art. VIII of the Constitution, because the
execution of the Decision is but an integral part of the adjudicative function of the Court. None of the agencies
ever questioned the power of the Court to implement the December 18, 2008 Decision nor has any of them raised
the alleged encroachment by the Court over executive functions. While additional activities are required of the
agencies like submission of plans of action, data or status reports, these directives are but part and parcel of the
execution stage of a final decision under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Same; Same; Same; With the final and executory judgment in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority
(MMDA), the writ of continuing mandamus issued in MMDA means that until petitioner-agencies have shown full
compliance with the Courts orders, the Court exercises continuing jurisdiction over them until full execution of
the judgment.The submission of periodic reports is sanctioned by Secs. 7 and 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental cases: Sec. 7. Judgment.If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ
of continuing mandamus requiring respondent to perform an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully
satisfied and to grant such other reliefs as may be warranted resulting from the wrongful or illegal acts of the
respondent. The court shall require the respondent to submit periodic reports detailing the progress and execution
of the judgment, and the court may, by itself or through a commissioner or the appropriate government agency,
evaluate and monitor compliance. The petitioner may submit its comments or observations on the execution of the
judgment. Sec. 8. Return of the writ.The periodic reports submitted by the respondent detailing compliance with
the judgment shall be contained in partial returns of the writ. Upon full satisfaction of the judgment, a final return
of the writ shall be made to the court by the respondent. If the court finds that the judgment has been fully
implemented, the satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in the court docket. (Emphasis supplied.) With the final
and executory judgment in MMDA, the writ of continuing mandamus issued in MMDA means that until
petitioner-agencies have shown full compliance with the Courts orders, the Court exercises continuing
jurisdiction over them until full execution of the judgment.
(Carmona vs. UDMC)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated OCT. 15, 1979,
G.R. No. 51637 [Formerly UDK-4139] (In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Faustino Ramos y
Carmona; Visitacion Galan Carmona vs. United Doctors Medical Center).At the hearing held this morning,
Atty. Alfredo M. Cargo of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office, Ministry of Justice appeared for the petitioner
Visitacion Galan Carmona and her husband Faustino Ramos y Carmona who were both personally present; Maj.
Sotero Soriano and Capt. Rodolfo Rosales appeared on behalf of Maj. Gen. Fidel V. Ramos and Brig. Gen.
Antonio P. Uy pursuant to their return of the writ; and Atty. Constantino A. Nunez, together with Attys. Jose B.
Puerto and John P. Basco, appeared on behalf of respondent United Doctors Medical Center.
In the course of the interpellations, Atty. Nunez, together with Dr. Dante Estares, credit and collection officer of
respondent United Doctors Medical Center, affirmed that they were in no way detaining in the hospital premises
petitioners husband Faustino Ramos y Carmona for non-payment of his bills and that he was free at any time to
pack up his things and to be discharged from the hospital. They further stated that they had stopped charging
petitioners husband for his stay in the hospital since June 26, 1979 as of which date his total account amounted to
some P40,791.00 (some P15,000.00 of which were due to the hospital and the balance was for doctors fees for the
three operations performed on petitioners husband). They admitted, however, requiring petitioner and her
husband to endorse in their favor all their rights against the insurance company to the client of the amount due to
the hospital and doctors, manifesting that petitioner and her husband had already succeeded in collecting the sum
of P5,000.00, no part of which was ever applied to their account with the hospital and this was admitted by
petitioner who stated that she had spent the amount to take care of the needs of her husband.
Petitioner and her husband undertook in turn that as required by respondent, they would forthwith assign and
endorse in favor of respondent their claim for damages against the insurance carried by the car bearing plate No.
GR 961 L-Filipinas 78 driven by Rodolfo Lee which had bumped him and inflicted serious physical injuries upon
him on May 2, 1979 and would assist in the prosecution of such claim, and that At-ty. Cargo undertook that he
would assist them in the preparation and execution of such assignment and endorsement to the extent of the
amount due and owing by them for hospital and medical fees.
It was made clear and the Court accordingly informed petitioner and her husband Faustino Ramos y Carmona that
he could pick up his belongings from the hospital and go back home this very day. The Court further REQUIRED
(a) Atty. Cargo to submit copies of the exchange of letters between him and respondent hospital and the
certification read by him at the hearing, and (b) Atty. Nunez to file his written return of the writ on behalf of
respondent hospital, both by the close of office hours tomorrow, October 16, 1979, after which the case will be cause a temperature differential that may trigger some physical discomfort, or that the removal of entertainment
considered closed and terminated. facilities such as the television set, or the disconnection of communication devices such as the telephone, may
cause some exasperation on the part of the one who benefits from these, nevertheless, all things considered, and
The letter of Atty. Melquiades C. Virata, Sr. to appear and submit a memorandum as amicus curiae was NOTED. given the degree of diligence the petitioner duly exerted, not every suppression of the things that one has grown
accustomed to enjoy amounts to an actionable wrong, nor does every physical or emotional discomfort amount to
Very truly yours, the kind of anguish that warrants the award of moral damages under the general principles of tort. The underlying
basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that an individual was injured in contemplation of law. Thus,
(S) GLORIA C. PARAS
there must first be the breach of some duty and the imposition of liability for that breach before damages may be
(T) GLORIA C. PARAS
Clerk of Court awarded; it is not sufficient to state that there should be tort liability merely because the plaintiff suffered some
First Division pain and suffering.
The Chief (x,
Philippine Constabulary Same; Civil Law; A patient cannot be detained in a hospital for nonpayment of the hospital bill.Authorities,
and/or The Commanding Officer (x) including those of common law origin, explicitly declare that a patient cannot be detained in a hospital for
CIS, HPC, Camp Crame nonpayment of the hospital bill. If the patient cannot pay the hospital or physicians bill, the law provides a
Quezon City remedy for them to pursue, that is, by filing the necessary suit in court for the recovery of such fee or bill. If the
Attys. Constantino R. Rapanut & Alfredo M. Cargo (x)
patient is prevented from leaving the hospital for his inability to pay the bill, any person who can act on his behalf
Counsel for Petitioner
CITIZENS LEGAL ASSISTANCE OFFICE can apply in court for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus.
Ministry of Justice, Padre Faura
Manila Civil Law; When a hospital treats a patients injuries, it has an enforceable claim for full payment for its services
regardless of the patients financial status.Authorities are of the view that, ordinarily, a hospital, especially if it
Atty. Constantino A. Nuez, Jose B. Puerto and is a private pay hospital, is entitled to be compensated for its services, by either an express or an implied contract,
John P. Basco (x) and if no express contract exists, there is generally an implied agreement that the patient will pay the reasonable
c/o Dr. Dante Estares value of the services rendered; when a hospital treats a patients injuries, it has an enforceable claim for full
Counsel for Respondent
payment for its services, regardless of the patients financial status.
Credit and Collection Officer
UNITED DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER
Rotonda, Espaa, Quezon City Carmona, et al. vs. UDMC, 93 SCRA 440, October 15, 1979 Damages; In case of physical injuries, with some exceptions, moral damages are recoverable only by the party
injured and not by her spouse, next of kin, or relative who happened to sympathize with the injured party.This
Court observes that the courts a quo awarded both respondents moral damages. But it is well-settled that in case of
G.R. No. 150355.July 31, 2006.* physical injuries, with some exceptions, moral damages are recoverable only by the party injured and not by her
spouse, next of kin, or relative who happened to sympathize with the injured party. Hence, even if the courts a quo
MANILA DOCTORS HOSPITAL, petitioner, vs. SO UN CHUA and VICKY TY, respondents. were correct in their basis for

Remedial Law; Certiorari; While as a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45, under certain exceptions, the Court may re-examine the evidence presented by the parties
during the trial.While, as a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45, under certain exceptions, the Court may re-examine the evidence presented by the parties during the trial.
At least four exceptions exist in this case, namely: (a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (b) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (c) when the
findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and
(d) when the courts a quo manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
Damages; The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that an individual was injured in
contemplation of law.Though human experience would show that the deactivation of the air-conditioner may
damages, they should have declined to award damages to respondent Ty.
Civil Law; Court takes judicial notice of the pending Senate Bill No. 337, entitled An Act Prohibiting the
Detention of Patients in Hospitals and Medical Clinics on Grounds of Nonpayment of Hospital Bills or Medical
Expenses.The Court takes judicial notice of the pending Senate Bill No. 337, entitled An Act Prohibiting the
Detention of Patients in Hospitals and Medical Clinics on Grounds of Nonpayment of Hospital Bills or Medical
Expenses, which declares, among others, that it shall be unlawful for any hospital or medical clinic to cause
directly or indirectly the detention of patients for nonpayment, in part or in full, of their hospital bills, and,
furthermore, requires patients who have fully recovered and are financially incapable to settle the hospitalization
expenses to execute a promissory note, co-signed by another individual, to the extent of the unpaid obligation
before leaving the hospital. Manila Doctors Hospitals vs. So Un Chua, 497 SCRA 230, G.R. No. 150355 July 31,
2006