THE PALAWAN COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT VS.

EJERCITO LIM
G.R. No. 183173, August 24, 2016
Ponente: J. Bersamin

Facts:
 Petition filed by the Chairman and Executive Director of the Palawan Council for
Sustainable Development (PCSD) against the Court of Appeals' decision to nullify
regulations on the transport of live fish in Palawan.
 PCSD issued Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 00-05 in 2002, requiring accreditation from
the PCSD for the transport of live fish from Palawan.
 Respondent, operator of Bonanza Air Services, continued business without securing
required accreditation.
 PCSD issued Notice of Violation and Show Cause Order to respondent, but he claimed
not to have received it.
 Respondent filed petition for prohibition in the Court of Appeals, which granted the
petition and declared the regulations null and void.

Issue:
 Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the regulations null and void for
being issued in excess of the PCSD's authority.

Decisions:
 Supreme Court granted the petition for review on certiorari and reversed the decision of
the Court of Appeals.
 Court held that the petition for prohibition should have been originally brought in the
proper Regional Trial Court as a petition for declaratory relief.
 Court noted that a petition for prohibition is not the proper remedy to challenge an
administrative order issued in the exercise of a quasi-legislative function.
 Court still evaluated the validity of the challenged administrative issuances.

Ratio:
 PCSD had the authority to issue the regulations on the transport of live fish in Palawan.
 PCSD was established as the administrative machinery for the implementation of the
Strategic Environment Plan (SEP) for Palawan.
 Functions of the PCSD included formulating plans and policies, coordinating with local
governments, and enforcing the provisions of the SEP.
 Therefore, PCSD had the authority to issue the regulations to carry out the objectives of
the SEP.
 Court declared the regulations and the Notice of Violation and Show Cause Order valid
and effective, and lifted the permanent injunction issued by the Court of Appeals.
 Respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the suit.