G.R. No. 160932. Januar 14, 2013.

SPECIAL PEOPLE, INC. FOUNDATION, REPRESENTED BY

ITS CHAIRMAN, ROBERTO P. CERICOS, petitioner, .
NESTOR M. CANDA, BIENVENIDO LIPAYON, JULIAN D.
AMADOR, BOHOL PROVINCIAL CHIEF, REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, AND NATIONAL DIRECTOR, RESPECTIVELY,
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU, DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND THE
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ALL SUED IN BOTH THEIR
OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE CAPACITIES, respondents.

Remedial La ; Ci il Proced re; Appeal ; Pe i ion for Re ie on

Cer iorari; In he e erci e of i po er of re ie , he S preme Co r i no a
rier of fac and doe no normall nder ake he re-e amina ion of he
e idence pre en ed b he con ending par ie d ring he rial of he ca e;
E cep ion . It is a settled rule, indeed, that in the exercise of our power of
review, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the
re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during
the trial of the case. The Court relies on the ndings of fact of the Court of
Appeals or of the trial court, and accepts such ndings as conclusive and
binding unless any of the following exceptions obtains, namely: (a) when
the ndings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
(b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(c) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is based
on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the ndings of facts are con icting;
(f) when in making its ndings the Court of Appeals or the trial court went
beyond the issues of the case, or its ndings are contrary to the admissions
of both the appellant and the appellee; (g) when the ndings are contrary to
the trial court; (h) when the ndings are conclusions without citation of
speci c evidence on which they are based; (i) when the facts set forth in the
petition as well as in the petitioner s main and reply briefs are

* FI DI I ION.

404

404 EME C E A A ED
 S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

not disputed by the respondent; (j) when the ndings of fact are premised on
the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record; and (k) when the Court of Appeals or the trial court manifestly
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. However, none of
the aforementioned exceptions applies herein.
Same; Same; E ha ion of Admini ra i e Remedie ; A par ho
eek he in er en ion of a co r of la pon an admini ra i e concern
ho ld r a ail him elf of all he remedie afforded b admini ra i e
proce e . It is axiomatic, to begin with, that a party who seeks the
intervention of a court of law upon an administrative concern should rst
avail himself of all the remedies afforded by administrative processes. The
issues that an administrative agency is authorized to decide should not be
summarily taken away from it and submitted to a court of law without rst
giving the agency the opportunity to dispose of the issues upon due
deliberation. The court of law must allow the administrative agency to carry
out its functions and discharge its responsibilities within the specialized
areas of its competence. This rests on the theory that the administrative
authority is in a better position to resolve questions addressed to its
particular expertise, and that errors committed by subordinates in their
resolution may be recti ed by their superiors if given a chance to do so.
Same; Special Ci il Ac ion ; Mandam ; A ke principle o be
ob er ed in dealing i h pe i ion for mandam i ha ch e raordinar
remed lie o compel he performance of d ie ha are p rel mini erial
in na re, no ho e ha are di cre ionar . A key principle to be observed
in dealing with petitions for mandam is that such extraordinary remedy
lies to compel the performance of duties that are purely ministerial in nature,
not those that are discretionary. A purely ministerial act or duty is one that
an of cer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed
manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to
or the exercise of its own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the
act done. The duty is ministerial only when its discharge requires neither the
exercise of of cial discretion or judgment.

405

. 688, A A 14, 2013 405

S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

PETITION for re ie on certiorari of a decision of the Co rt of

Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Co rt.
A e P. Caba for petitioner.
 N e C. E e for respondents Bien enido L. Lipa on and
Nestor Canda.

BERSAMIN, J.:
The peremptor rit of a da is an e traordinar remed
that is iss ed onl in e treme necessit , and the ordinar co rse of
proced re is po erless to afford an adeq ate and speed relief to
one ho has a clear legal right to the performance of the act to be
compelled.

An eceden

The petitioner as a proponent of a ater-reso rce de elopment

and tili ation project in Baranga Jimilia-an in the M nicipalit of
Loboc, Bohol that o ld in ol e the tapping and p rif ing of ater
from the Loboc Ri er, and the distrib tion of the p ri ed ater to
the residents of Loboc and si other m nicipalities. The petitioner
applied for a Certi cate of Non-Co erage (CNC) ith the
En ironmental Management B rea (EMB) of the Department of
En ironment and Nat ral Reso rces (DENR), Region 7, seeking to
be e empt from the req irement of the En ironmental Compliance
Certi cate (ECC) nder Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1586
on the follo ing j sti cations, to it:
1) The hole projec simpl in ol es apping of a er from he Loboc Ri er,
l ering and p rif ing i , and dis rib ing he same o he cons mers in he
co ered o ns;

406

406 S PREME CO RT REPORTS ANNOTATED

S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

2) From he so rce o he l ra ion plan , hen o he p ri er s a ions, hen nall

o he cons mers ho seholds, a er o s hro gh s eel pipes;
3) The l ra ion and p rif ing process emplo s he la es
echnolog elec roca al ic in erna ionall accep ed for safe and
en ironmen friendliness;
4) No as e is genera ed, as he elec roca al ic process dissol es all imp ri ies
in he a er;
5) The projec in ol es no des r c ion [n]or harm o he en ironmen . On he
o her hand, i is en ironmen friendl .1

Upon e al ating the nat re and magnit de of the en ironmental

impact of the project, respondent Nestor M. Canda, then Chief of
EMB in Bohol, rendered his ndings in a letter dated December 4,
2001, as follo s:
1) The project is located within a critical area; hence, Initial Environmental
Examination is required.
 2) The projec is sociall and poli icall sensi i e herefore proof of social
accep abili sho ld be es ablished. Proper indorsemen from he [Pro ec ed
Area Managemen B rea or] PAMB sho ld be sec red.2 (Emphasis s pplied)

On Jan ar 11, 2002, the petitioner appealed Canda s ndings to

respondent EMB Region 7 Director Bien enido L. Lipa on (RD
Lipa on), claiming that it sho ld also be iss ed a CNC beca se the
project as no different from the Loboc-Loa ater orks project of
the Department of P blic Works and High a s (DPWH) that had
recentl been iss ed a CNC.3
On April 3, 2002, RD Lipa on noti ed the petitioner that its
doc ments s bstantiall complied ith the proced ral aspects of the
EMB s re ie , and that the application as

_______________
1R , p. 35.
2 Id., at p. 39.
3 Id., at p. 40.

407

. 688, A A 14, 2013 407

S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

assigned EMB-DENR-7 Control No. CNC-02-080 for eas

reference in case of follo - p and s bmission of additional
req irements.4
Later on, RD Lipa on informed the petitioner that an Initial
En ironmental E amination doc ment as req ired for the project
d e to its signi cant impact in the area.5
On A g st 26, 2002, RD Lipa on req ired the petitioner to
s bmit the follo ing doc ments to enable the EMB to determine
hether the project as ithin an en ironmentall critical area or
not, to it:

1. Certi cation from DENR, Pro incial En ironment and Natural Resources
Of ce (PENRO) that it is not ithin areas declared b la as national parks,
atershed reser es, ildlife preser ation area, sanctuaries and not ithin the
pur ie of Republic Act No. 7586 or the National Integrated Protected
Areas S stem (NIPAS) Act, and other issuances including international
commitments and declarations;
2. Certi cation from the DENR Regional Of ce/PENRO [that] the areas
ithin the project do[ ] not constitute [the habitat] for an endangered or
threatened species or indigenous ildlife (Flora and Fauna).
3. Certi cation from the follo ing:
3.1. Philippine Atmospheric Geoph sical and Astronomical Ser ices
Administration (PAGASA) that the area is not frequentl isited or
hard-hit b t phoons. This shall refer to all areas here t phoon
 signal no. 3 not hoisted for at least t ice a ear during the last e
(5) ears prior to the ear of reckoning. Years to be considered shall
be from Januar 1995 to December 2001.
3.2. Philippine Institute of Volcanolog and Seismolog (PHIVOLCS)
that the area as no bjec ed o

_______________
4 Id., at p. 44.
5 Id., at p. 45.

40

408 C A A D
S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

an ea h ake of a lea in en i VII in he Ro i-Fo el cale o

i e i alen and hi b nami d ing he pe iod of 1638 n il
he ea 2001.
3.3. PHIVOLCS that the area as not subjected to earthquakes of at
least intensit VII in the Rossi-Forel scale or its equi alent during
the period of 1949 until the ear 2001.
3.4. PAGASA that the area is not storm surge-prone.
3.5. Mines and Geosciences Bureau Region 7 (MGB 7) that the area is
not located along fault lines or ithin fault ones and no loca ed in
c i ical lope.
3.6. Cit Ma or and/or Cit Engineers Of ce that the area is not ood
prone.
3.7. Net ork of Protected Areas for Agriculture (NPAA) of the Bureau
of Soils and Water Management (BSWM) that the area is not
classi ed as Prime Agricultural Land.
4. Certi cation from the Pro incial Tourism Of ce or its equi alent of ce that
areas in our project are not set-aside as aesthetic potential tourist spot.
5. Certi cation from the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) that areas
ithin our project are not recharge[d] areas of aquifer.
6. Certi cation from DENR regional Of ce and/or En ironmental
Management Bureau 7 (EMB 7) that Loboc Ri er is not characteri ed b
one or an combination of the follo ing conditions:
a. Tapped for domestic purposes;
b. With controlled and/or protected areas declared b appropriate
authorities; and
c. Which support ildlife and sher acti ities.
A Ce i ca e of Non-Co e age ill d l be i ed o o fo nda ion once all
he abo e men ioned e i ed ce i ca ion a e complied i h.

40

. 688, A A 14, 2013 409

 S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

Projects that are co ered b P.D. 1586 or the En ironmental Impact S stem (EIS)
La should not start unless the Project Proponent should secure an En ironmental
Compliance Certi cate (ECC), other ise penalties shall be imposed.6 (Emphases
supplied)

On Jan ar 28, 2003, the petitioner s bmitted eight

7
certi cations, incl ding the certi cation iss ed b the Philippine
Instit te of Volcanolog and Seismolog (PHIVOLCS), as follo s:

That the project area, Loboc, Bohol was subjected to an earthquake of

In ensi VII in the adapted Rossi-Forel scale of I-IX last Febr ar 8,
1990. The magnitude of the earthquake is 6.8 and the highest intensity
reported was VIII, based on the Rossi-Forel Intensity Scale. During the said
earthquake, the PMI Academy Building collapsed while minor cracks were
sustained by the municipal hall, public school, town church and some other
houses in the town. There were reports that immediately after the
earthquake, the force of the incoming waves from the sea caused Alijuan
River in the town of Duero to ow inland. The report also states that the
waves affected 10-50 meters of the coastal beach of the towns of Jagna,
Duero, Guindulman, Garcia Hernandez and Valencia.8 (Emphases supplied)

The petitioner failed to sec re a certi cation from the Regional

Of ce of the Mines and Geosciences B rea (RO-MGB) to the
effect that the project area as not located along a fa lt line/fa lt
one or a critical slope beca se RO-MGB did not ha e the data and
e pertise to render s ch nding, and th s had to for ard the
petitioner s req est to the MGB Central Of ce.
Upon the MGB s ad ice, the petitioner so ght and obtained the
req ired certi cation from PHIVOLCS, b t the certi cation did not
state hether the project area as ithin a criti-

_______________
6 Id., at pp. 52-53.
7 Id., at pp. 54-64.
8 Id., at p. 58.
9 Id., at p. 59.

410

410 C A A D
S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

cal slope. Instead, the certi cation stated that the project site as
appro imatel 18 kilometers est of the East Bohol Fa lt.10
 Gi en the tenor of the certi cation from PHIVOLCS, RD
Lipa on s letter dated Febr ar 4, 2003 declared that the project as
ithin an en ironmentall critical area, and that the petitioner as
not entitled to the CNC, .:

After thorough review of your submitted certi cations, it was found out
that the area was subjected to an earthquake of Intensity VII in the adapted
Rossi-Forel scale wherein the magnitude of the earthquake is 6.8 with the
highest intensity reported of VIII and you fail to support certi cation that
the project area is not within critical slope. And based on the Water Usage
and Classi cation per Department Order (DAO) 34 Series of 1990, subject
river system was of cially classi ed as Class B intended for swimming and
bathing purposes. Moreover, one component of your project involves
opening of roadway connected to the barangay road.
Therefore, we reiterate our previous stand that your project is covered by
the EIS System pursuant to P.D. 1586, the Environmental Impact Statement
Law.11

On March 27, 2003, the petitioner led a petition for a da

and damages in the Regional Trial Co rt (RTC) in Loa , Bohol,12
alleging that it as no entitled to a CNC as a matter of right after
ha ing complied ith the certi cation req irements; and that the
EMB had earlier iss ed a CNC to the DPWH for a similar
ater orks project in the same area.
In the decision dated No ember 18, 2003,13 the RTC di i ed
the petition for a da pon the follo ing considerations,
namel : (1) PHIVOLCS certi ed that the project site had been
s bjected to an Intensit VII earthq ake in 1990;

_______________
10 Id., at p. 64.
11 Id., at p. 65.
12 Id., at pp. 16-27.
13 Id., at pp. 125-134.

411

. 688, A A 14, 2013 411

S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

(2) the CNC iss ed b the EMB to a similar ater orks project of
the DPWH in the same area as onl for the constr ction of a nit
spring bo intake and p mp ho se, and the DENR iss ed a cease
and desist order relati e to the DPWH s additional project to p t p
a ater ltration plant therein; (3) the determination of hether an
area as en ironmentall critical as a task that pertained to the
EMB; (4) the assignment of a control n mber b the EMB to the
petitioner s application did not mean that the application as as
good as appro ed; (5) the RTC o ld not interfere ith the primar
prerogati e of the EMB to re ie the merits of the petitioner s
application for the CNC; and (6) there as alread a pending appeal
lodged ith the DENR Secretar .
Hence, this appeal bro ght directl to the Co rt a petition for
re ie on ce a .

I e

The petitioner s bmits the follo ing iss es:

A. WHETHER OR NOT, AFTER PETITIONER S DUE COMPLIANCE WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY RESPONDENTS FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF NON-COVERAGE (CNC)
APPLIED FOR BY PETITIONER, IT IS NOW THE RIPENED DUTY OF
RESPONDENTS, THROUGH RESPONDENT EMB REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, TO ISSUE SAID DOCUMENT IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER;
B. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER HAS EXHAUSTED AVAILABLE
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES THROUGH AN APPEAL TO
RESPONDENT DENR SECRETARY WHO HAS SAT ON SAID APPEAL
UP TO THE PRESENT;
C. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER
DAMAGES FROM RESPONDENTS IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITY.1

_______________
14 Id., at p. 6.

412

412 C A A D
S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

The petitioner insists that RD Lipa on alread e ercised his

discretion b nding that the application s bstantiall complied ith
the proced ral aspects for re ie and b assigning Control No.
CNC-02-080 to its application; that after the petitioner complied
ith the req irements en merated in the A g st 26, 2002 letter of
RD Lipa on, the EMB became d t -bo nd to iss e the CNC to the
petitioner; that the EMB iss ed a CNC to a similar project of the
DPWH in the same area; that it led an appeal ith the DENR
Secretar , b t the appeal remained nresol ed; and that it bro ght
the petition for a da precisel as a speedier reco rse.
In their comment, RD Lipa on and Canda a er that the act
complained of against them in ol ed an e ercise of discretion that
co ld not be compelled b a da ; that the petitioner s proposed
project as located ithin an en ironmentall critical area, and the
acti ities to be done ere so signi cant that the o ld create
massi e earth mo ement and en ironmental degradation; that the
petitioner iolated the r le against for m shopping; and that the
petitioner had no ca se of action against them for fail re to e ha st
administrati e remedies.
On his part, the DENR Secretar , thro gh the Solicitor General,
contends that the petition raises q estions of fact that are not proper
in a petition for re ie ; that the petitioner sho ld ha e appealed to
the CA nder R le 41 of the R e f C ; that the grant or denial
of a CNC application is discretionar and cannot be compelled b
a da ; and that the petitioner failed to e ha st administrati e
remedies.
Accordingl , the Co rt is called pon to resol e, , hether
the appeal directl to this Co rt from the RTC as proper, and,
ec d , hether the petition for a da as the correct
reco rse.

R ling

The petition for re ie is denied for its lack of merit.

413

. 688, A A 14, 2013 413

S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

1.
Pe i i e a eal i i e
de R le 45, R le f C
This appeal b ce a is being taken nder R le 45, R e f
C , hose Section 1 e pressl req ires that the petition shall
raise onl q estions of la hich m st be distinctl set forth. Yet,
the petitioner hereb raises a q estion of fact hose resol tion is
decisi e in this appeal. That iss e of fact concerns hether or not
the petitioner established that its project as not located in an
en ironmentall critical area. For this reason, the Co rt is
constrained to den d e co rse to the petition for re ie .
It is a settled r le, indeed, that in the e ercise of o r po er of
re ie , the Co rt is not a trier of facts and does not normall
ndertake the re-e amination of the e idence presented b the
contending parties d ring the trial of the case. The Co rt relies on
the ndings of fact of the Co rt of Appeals or of the trial co rt, and
accepts s ch ndings as concl si e and binding nless an of the
follo ing e ceptions obtains, namel : (a) hen the ndings are
gro nded entirel on spec lation, s rmises or conject res; (b) hen
the inference made is manifestl mistaken, abs rd or impossible; (c)
hen there is gra e ab se of discretion; (d) hen the j dgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) hen the ndings of facts
are con icting; (f) hen in making its ndings the Co rt of Appeals
or the trial co rt ent be ond the iss es of the case, or its ndings
are contrar to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;
(g) hen the ndings are contrar to the trial co rt; ( ) hen the
ndings are concl sions itho t citation of speci c e idence on
hich the are based; ( ) hen the facts set forth in the petition as
ell as in the petitioner s main and repl briefs are not disp ted b
the respondent; ( ) hen the ndings of fact are premised on the
s pposed absence of e idence and contradicted b the e idence on
record; and ( ) hen the Co rt of Appeals or the trial co rt
manifestl o erlooked certain rele ant facts not disp ted b the

414

414 C A A D
S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

parties, hich, if properl considered, o ld j stif a different

concl sion.15 Ho e er, none of the aforementioned e ceptions
applies herein.

2.
Mandam a a i e e ed f eii e

We dismiss the present reco rse beca se the petitioner failed to

e ha st the a ailable administrati e remedies, and beca se it failed
to sho that it as legall entitled to demand the performance of the
act b the respondents.
It is a iomatic, to begin ith, that a part ho seeks the
inter ention of a co rt of la pon an administrati e concern sho ld
rst a ail himself of all the remedies afforded b administrati e
processes. The iss es that an administrati e agenc is a thori ed to
decide sho ld not be s mmaril taken a a from it and s bmitted to
a co rt of la itho t rst gi ing the agenc the opport nit to
dispose of the iss es pon d e deliberation.16 The co rt of la m st
allo the administrati e agenc to carr o t its f nctions and
discharge its responsibilities ithin the speciali ed areas of its
competence.17 This rests on the theor that the administrati e
a thorit is in a better position to resol e q estions addressed to its
partic lar e pertise, and that errors committed b s bor-

_______________
15 Sa a a .C f A ea , G.R. No. 156360, Januar 14, 2005, 448 SCRA
220, 229; T e I a L fe A a ce C a , L d. . C f A ea , G.R. No.
126850, April 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 79, 85-86; La g aa Rea De e e , I c. .
U ed C c Pa e Ba , G.R. No. L-139437, December 8, 2000, 347 SCRA
542, 549; N . Na a Lab Re a C , G.R. No. 140043, Jul 18,
2000, 336 SCRA 97, 110; S a. Ma a . C f A ea , G.R. No. 127549, Januar
28, 1998, 285 SCRA 351, 357-358.
16 Re b c . Laca , G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255, 265.
 17 Add H Ma da g C c & S c a O ga a , I c. . Mega d
P e e & H d g , I c., G.R. No. 175039, April 18, 2012, 670 SCRA 83, 89.

415

. 688, A A 14, 2013 415

S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

dinates in their resol tion ma be recti ed b their s periors if gi en

a chance to do so.1
The records sho that the petitioner failed to e ha st the
a ailable administrati e remedies. At the time RD Lipa on denied
the petitioner s application for the CNC, Administrati e Order No.
42 dated No ember 2, 20021 had j st ested the a thorit to grant
or den applications for the ECC in the Director and Regional
Directors of the EMB. Not ithstanding the lack of a speci c
implementing g ideline to hat of ce the r ling of the EMB
Regional Director as to be appealed, the petitioner co ld ha e been
easil g ided in that regard b the Ad a e C de f 1987,
hich pro ides that the Director of a line b rea , s ch as the
EMB,20 shall ha e s per ision and control o er all di ision and
other nits, incl ding regional of ces, nder the b rea .21 Veril ,
s per ision and control incl de the po er to re ie , appro e,
re erse or modif acts and decisions of s bordinate of cials or
nits. 22 Accordingl , the petitioner sho ld ha e appealed the EMB

_______________
18 S e T be P d c , I c. . Abad, G.R. No. 85502, Februar 24, 1992,
206 SCRA 482, 486-487.
19 RATIONALIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT (EIS) SYSTEM AND GIVING AUTHORITY, IN ADDITION TO THE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, TO THE DIRECTOR AND REGIONAL
DIRECTORS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU TO GRANT OR DENY THE

ISSUANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATES

20 Republic Act No. 8749 (P e C ea A Ac f 1999) converted the
Environmental Management Bureau from a staff bureau to a line bureau. Under
Section 20, in conjunction with Section 41, Chapter 8, Book IV of the Administrative
Code of 1987, the Director of a line bureau shall have supervision and control over all
division and other units, including regional of ces, under the bureau.
21 Administrative Code of 1987, Book IV, Chapter 8, Sections 20 and 41.
22 Administrative Code of 1987, Book IV, Chapter 7, Section 38(1).

416

416 C A A D
S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda
Regional Director s decision to the EMB Director, ho e ercised
s per ision and control o er the former.
It is rele ant to mention that the DENR later prom lgated
Administrati e Order No. 2003-3023 in order to de ne here
appeals sho ld be taken, pro iding as follo s:

Section 6. Appeal
An part aggrie ed b the nal decision on the ECC/CNC applications ma ,
ithin 15 da s from receipt of such decision, le an appeal on the follo ing
grounds:
a. Gra e abuse of discretion on the part of the deciding authorit , or
b. erious errors in the re ie ndings.
The DENR ma adopt alternati e con ict/dispute resolution procedures as a
means to settle grie ances bet een proponents and aggrie ed parties to a ert
unnecessar legal action. Fri olous appeals shall not be countenanced.
The proponent or an stakeholder ma le an appeal to the follo ing:

Deciding Authority Where to le the appeal

EMB Regional Of ce Director Of ce of the EMB Director
EMB Central Of ce Director Of ce of the DENR Secretary
DENR Secretary Of ce of the President

Moreo er, the petitioner states in its pleadings that it had a

pending appeal ith the DENR Secretar . Ho e er, the records
re eal that the s bject of the appeal of the petitioner as an ndated
resol tion of the DENR Regional Director, Region VII, den ing its
application for the CNC,24 not the decision of RD Lipa on.
Nonetheless, e en ass ming that the pending appeal ith the DENR
Secretar had related to RD Lipa on s decision, the petitioner
sho ld still ha e aited for

_______________
23 It took effect on August 4, 2003.
24 R , pp. 42-43.

417

. 688, A A 14, 2013 417

S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

the DENR Secretar to resol e the appeal in line ith the principle
of e ha stion of administrati e remedies. Its fail re to do so
rendered its resort to a da in the RTC premat re. The
omission is fatal, beca se a da is a remed onl hen there is
no appeal, nor an plain, speed and adeq ate remed in the
ordinar co rse of la .25
Another reason for den ing d e co rse to this re ie is that the
petitioner did not establish that the grant of its application for the
CNC as a p rel ministerial in nat re on the part of RD Lipa on.
Hence, a da as not a proper remed .
The CNC is a certi cation iss ed b the EMB certif ing that a
project is not co ered b the En ironmental Impact Statement
S stem (EIS S stem) and that the project proponent is not req ired
to sec re an ECC.26 The EIS S stem as established b Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 1586 p rs ant to Section 4 of P.D. No. 1151
(P eE e a P c ) that req ired all entities to s bmit
an EIS for projects that o ld ha e a signi cant effect on the
en ironment, th s:

Section 4. En ironmen al Impac S a emen . Pursuant to the abo e

enunciated policies and goals, all agencies and instrumentalities of the national
go ernment, including go ernment-o ned or controlled corporations, as ell as
pri ate corporations, rms and entities shall prepare, le and include in e er action,
project or undertaking hich signi cantl affects the qualit of the en ironment a
detailed statement on
(a) the en ironmental impact of the proposed action, project or undertaking
(b) an ad erse en ironmental effect hich cannot be a oided should the
proposal be implemented
(c) alternati e to the proposed action

_______________
25 Section 3, Rule 65, R e fC .
26 This de nition is based on DENR Administrative Order No. 2003-30,
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for the Philippine Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) S stem.

418

418 C A A D
S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

(d) a determination that the short-term uses of the resources of the en ironment
are consistent ith the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term
producti it of the same; and
(e) hene er a proposal in ol e[s] the use of depletable or non-rene able
resources, a nding must be made that such use and commitment are
arranted.

P.D. No. 1586 e empted from the req irement of an EIS the
projects and areas not declared b the President of the Philippines as
en ironmentall critical,27 th s:

Section 5. En ironmen all Non-Cri ical Projec . All other projects,

undertakings and areas not declared by the Presidents as environmentally
critical shall be considered as non-critical and shall not be required to
submit an environmental impact statement. The National Environmental
Protection Council, thru the Ministry of Human Settlements may however
require non-critical projects and undertakings to provide additional
environmental safeguards as it may deem necessary.

_______________
27 Section 4 of P.D. No. 1586 provides:
Section 4. P e de a P ca a f E e a C ca A ea a d
P ec . The President of the Philippines ma , on his own initiative or upon
recommendation of the National Environmental Protection Council, b proclamation
declare certain projects, undertakings or areas in the countr as environmentall
critical. No person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate an such
declared environmentall critical project or area without rst securing an
Environmental Compliance Certi cate issued b the President or his dul authori ed
representative. For the proper management of said critical project or area, the
President ma b his proclamation reorgani ed such government of ces, agencies,
institutions, corporations or instrumentalities including the realignment of
government personnel, and their speci c functions and responsibilities.

41

. 688, A A 14, 2013 419

S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

On December 14, 1981, the President iss ed Proclamation No.

2146 declaring areas and t pes of projects as en ironmentall
critical and ithin the scope of the EIS S stem, as follo s:
A. Environmentally Critical Projects
I. Hea Ind s ries
a. Non-ferro s me al ind s ries
b. Iron and s eel mills
c. Pe role m and pe ro-chemical ind s ries incl ding oil and gas
d. Smel ing plan s
II. Reso rce E rac i e Ind s ries
a. Major mining and q arr ing projec s
b. Fores r projec s
1. Logging
2. Major ood processing projec s
3. In rod c ion of fa na (e o ic-animals) in p blic/pri a e fores s
4. Fores occ panc
5. E rac ion of mangro e prod c s
6. Gra ing
c. Fisher Projec s
1. Dikes for shpond de elopmen projec s
III. Infras r c re Projec s
a. Major dams
 b. Major po er plan s (fossil-f eled, n clear f eled, h droelec ric or
geo hermal)
c. Major reclama ion projec s
d. Major roads and bridges.
B. Environmentally Critical Areas
1. All areas declared b la as na ional parks, a ershed reser es, ildlife
preser es and sanc aries;
2. Areas se aside as aes he ic po en ial o ris spo s;
3. Areas hich cons i e he habi a for an endangered or hrea ened species of
indigeno s Philippine Wildlife ( ora and fa na);

420

420 S PREME CO RT REPORTS ANNOTATED

S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

4. Areas of niq e his oric, archaeological, or scien i c in eres s;

5. Areas hich are radi ionall occ pied b c l ral comm ni ies or ribes;
6. Areas freq en l isi ed and/or hard-hi b na ral calami ies (geologic
ha ards, oods, phoons, olcanic ac i i , e c.);
7. Areas i h cri ical slopes;
8. Areas classi ed as prime agric l ral lands;
9. Recharged areas of aq ifers;
10. Wa er bodies charac eri ed b one or an combina ion of he follo ing
condi ions;
a. apped for domes ic p rposes
b. i hin he con rolled and/or pro ec ed areas declared b appropria e
a hori ies
c. hich s ppor ildlife and sher ac i i ies
11. Mangro e areas charac eri ed b one or an combina ion of he follo ing
condi ions:
a. i h primar pris ine and dense o ng gro h;
b. adjoining mo h of major ri er s s ems;
c. near or adjacen o radi ional prod c i e fr or shing gro nds;
d. hich ac as na ral b ffers agains shore erosion, s rong inds and
s orm oods;
e. on hich people are dependen for heir li elihood.
12. Coral reef, charac eri ed b one or an combina ion of he follo ing condi ions:
a. i h 50% and abo e li e coralline co er;
b. spa ning and n rser gro nds for sh;
c. hich ac as na ral break a er of coas lines.

Projects not incl ded in the foregoing en meration ere

considered non-critical to the en ironment and ere entitled to the
CNC.
The foregoing considerations indicate that the grant or denial of
an application for ECC/CNC is not an act that is p rel ministerial
in nat re, b t one that in ol es the e ercise of j dgment and
discretion b the EMB Director or Regional Director, ho m st
determine hether the project or project
 421

. 688, A A 14, 2013 421

S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

area is classi ed as critical to the en ironment based on the

doc ments to be s bmitted b the applicant.
The petitioner maintains that RD Lipa on alread e ercised his
discretion in its case hen he made his nding that the application
s bstantiall complied ith the proced ral req irements for re ie .
As s ch, he as then obliged to iss e the CNC once the petitioner
had s bmitted the req ired certi cations.
The petitioner errs on t o gro nds.
F , RD Lipa on had not et f ll e ercised his discretion
ith regard to the CNC application hen he made his nding. It is
clear that his nding referred to the proced ral req irements for
re ie onl . He had still to decide on the s bstanti e aspect of the
application, a , hether the project and the project area ere
considered critical to the en ironment. In fact, this as the reason
h RD Lipa on req ired the petitioner to s bmit certi cations
from the ario s go ernment agencies concerned. S rel , the
req ired certi cations ere not mere formalities, beca se the
o ld ser e as the bases for his decision on hether to grant or den
the application.
Sec d , there is no s f cient sho ing that the petitioner
satisfactoril complied ith the req irement to s bmit the needed
certi cations. For one, it s bmitted no certi cation to the effect that
the project site as not ithin a critical slope. Also, the
PHIVOLCS s certi cation sho ed that the project site had
e perienced an Intensit VII earthq ake in 1990, a fact that s f ced
to place the site in the categor of areas freq entl isited and/or
hard-hit b nat ral calamities. Clearl , the petitioner failed to
establish that it had the legal right to be iss ed the CNC applied for,
arranting the denial of its application.
It is not amiss for s to obser e, therefore, that the petitioner
grossl mis nderstood the nat re of the remed of a da . To
a oid similar mis nderstanding of the remed

422

422 C A A D
S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

hereafter, a short e position on the nat re and of ce of the remed is

no appropriate.
The rit of a da is of er ancient and obsc re origin. It is
belie ed that the rit as originall part of the class of rits or
mandates iss ed b the English so ereign to direct his s bjects to
perform a partic lar act or d t .2 The earliest rits ere in the form
of e e e, and ere mere personal commands. The
command as a la in itself, from hich there as no appeal. The
rit of a da as not onl declarator of a d t nder an
e isting la , b t as a la in itself that imposed the d t , the
performance of hich it commanded.2 The King as considered as
the fo ntain and so rce of j stice, and hen the la did not afford a
remed b the reg lar forms of proceedings, the prerogati e po ers
of the so ereign ere in oked in aid of the ordinar po ers of the
co rts.30
A j dicial rit of a da , iss ed in the King s name o t of
the co rt of King s Bench that had a general s per isor po er o er
all inferior j risdictions and of cers, grad all s pplanted the old
personal command of the so ereign.31 The co rt of King s Bench,
acting as the general g ardian of p blic rights and in the e ercise of
its a thorit to grant the rit, rendered the rit of a da the
s ppletor means of s bstantial j stice in e er case here there
as no other speci c legal remed for a legal right, and ens red that
all of cial d ties ere f l lled hene er the s bject-matter as
properl ithin its control.32 Earl on, the rit of a da as
partic larl sed to compel p blic a thorities to ret rn

_______________
28 High, A T ea e O E a d a Lega Re ed e , Third Edition (1896), 2,
p. 5.
29 I e La e , 109 N.W. 404 (Minn. 1906).
30 High, . c ., 3, p. 7.
31 Id.
32 C ea e e.T a .C e f A eg e C , 32 Pa.
218 (1858).

423

. 688, A A 14, 2013 423

S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

the petitioners to p blic of ces from hich the had been

nla f ll remo ed.33
Ma da as, therefore, originall a p rel prerogati e rit
emanating from the King himself, s perintending the police and
preser ing the peace ithin the realm.34 It as allo ed onl in cases
affecting the so ereign, or the interest of the p blic at large.35 The
rit of a da gre o t of the necessit to compel the inferior
co rts to e ercise j dicial and ministerial po ers in ested in them
b restraining their e cesses, pre enting their negligence and
restraining their denial of j stice.36
 O er time, the rit of a da has been stripped of its highl
prerogati e feat res and has been assimilated to the nat re of an
ordinar remed . Nonetheless, the rit has remained to be an
e traordinar remed in the sense that it is onl iss ed in
e traordinar cases and here the s al and ordinar modes of
proceeding and forms of remed are po erless to afford redress to a
part aggrie ed, and here itho t its aid there o ld be a fail re
of j stice.37
The rit of a da has also retained an important feat re that
sets it apart from the other remedial rits, .e., that it is sed merel
to compel action and to coerce the performance of a pre-e isting
d t .3 In fact, a doctrine ell-embedded in o r j rispr dence is that
a da ill iss e onl hen the petitioner has a clear legal right
to the performance of the act so ght to be compelled and the
respondent has an impera-

_______________
33 Antieau, T e P ac ce Of E a d a Re ed e , Vol. 1, 1987 Edition, 2.00,
p. 291.
34 Ab e a . W d, 45 Phil. 612, 625 (1924).
35 High, . c ., 3, pp. 6-7.
36 Ferris, e a ., T e La fE a d a Lega Re ed e , 1926 Edition, 187, p.
218.
37 High, . c ., 4, p. 9.
38 Id. 7, p. 11.

424

424 C A A D
S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

ti e d t to perform the same.3 The petitioner bears the b rden to

sho that there is s ch a clear legal right to the performance of the
act, and a corresponding compelling d t on the part of the
respondent to perform the act.40
A ke principle to be obser ed in dealing ith petitions for
a da is that s ch e traordinar remed lies to compel the
performance of d ties that are p rel ministerial in nat re, not those
that are discretionar .41 A p rel ministerial act or d t is one that
an of cer or trib nal performs in a gi en state of facts, in a
prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal a thorit ,
itho t regard to or the e ercise of its o n j dgment pon the
propriet or impropriet of the act done. The d t is ministerial onl
hen its discharge req ires neither the e ercise of of cial discretion
or j dgment.42
The petitioner s disregard of the foregoing f ndamental
req isites for a da rendered its petition in the RTC ntenable
and de oid of merit.
 WHEREFORE, the Co rt DENIES the petition for re ie on
ce a ; and ORDERS the petitioner to pa the costs of s it.
SO ORDERED.

Se e (C.J.), Le a d -De Ca , V a a a, J . and Re e ,

JJ., conc r.

Pe de ed.

_______________
39 Ma aI e a a A A . R e a V age Le ee H e e
A ca I c a ed, G.R. No. 143870, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 358,
375.
40 W g a -Ce a e . M e e , 750 F. Supp. 2d 76, 81 (D.C. 2010).
41 High, . c ., 24, pp. 31.
42 P eC c A .P e C c P d c , I c., G.R. No. 163088,
Jul 20, 2006, 495 SCRA 763.

425

. 688, A A 14, 2013 425

S ecial Peo le, Inc. Fo nda ion . Canda

N e . The doctrine of e ha stion of administrati e remedies

req ires that, for reasons of la , comit and con enience, here the
enabling stat te indicates a proced re for administrati e re ie and
pro ides a s stem of administrati e appeal or reconsideration, the
co rts ill not entertain a case nless the a ailable administrati e
remedies ha e been resorted to and the appropriate a thorities ha e
been gi en an opport nit to act and correct the errors committed in
the administrati e for m. (Ob a ca . Ba a e, 613 SCRA 110
[2010])
Being nder the control of the President, the Secretar of J stice,
or, to be precise, his decision is s bject to re ie of the former. In
ne, reco rse from the decision of the Secretar of J stice sho ld be
to the President, instead of the CA, nder the established principle of
e ha stion of administrati e remedies. (E a . Jac b , 675 SCRA
20 [2012])

o0o

C gh 2020 Ce a B S , I c. A gh e e ed.