Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
of
the
NBS
Machineries
Motor
center,
Inc.
at
Calasiao,
SARMIENTO, J.:
153rd
Mortgage
assigned
and
to
Assignment
the
Filinvest
was
Credit
PC
explained
Company
that
the
sought
minibus
the
was
After
decision
recovered
from
said
vehicle
the
court a
quo rendered
its
considered,
the
WHEREFORE,
trial,
follows, to wit:
was
Crisologo
Nestor
damages, to wit:
(a)
Moral
Sunga
Jr.
Damages
the
following
P30,000.00
600.00
(c)
Actual
damages
500.00
(d)
Litigation
expenses
5,000.00
law,
petitioner's
when
the
respondent
Court
of
from
denial
SO ORDERED.
increased
bare
hereby
P30,000.00
to
with petitioner.
In resolving the appeal before it thru
matters and questions not raised at
the trial or on appeal, by either of the
parties, respondent Court exceeded its
jurisdiction
acted
with
grave
abuse of discretion.
When the respondent Court granted
private respondent MORAL DAMAGES
in an exaggerated and unconscionable
amount, respondent Court exceeded
the
bounds
of
its
discretion,
and
discretion.
appeal
private
the
decision
respondent
because
considered
the
The
various
assignments
of
error
9
may
be
of. Whether or
lack of jurisdiction.
Rebosura,
et
Oropeza,
CA-G.R.
al.
versus
Rogaciano
No.
63048-R,
Honorable
Supreme
Court)
is
not
the
constitutionality
of
10
the
It asserts that
contractual
appea
11
16
Lastly, it
was
other
distinctions:
than
specified.
12
those
Further,
the
following
18
on
without
constitutional
questions.
13
substantive
treading
grounds,
into
that
citing
necessarily
submits
or
17
the
other
it
assigned
misplaced,
abuse of discretion.
14
15
It rationalizes that
it is not so.
On
the
other
side,
the
private
respondent
granted
decision is modified.
reading
and
understanding
of
the
assailed
19
20
Lastly, the
from
decision.
21
the
validity
of
the
assailed
and to
22
jurisdiction'
acted
means
with
that
absolute
the
court
want
of
of
has
jurisdiction.
There
is
"excess
jurisdiction"
where
the
court
of
discretion"
implies
such
24
25
not
be
palpably
and
scandalously
26
23
delinquent
must
in
the
payment
of
its
monthly
27
be
inflicted."
28
proportionate
to
the
suffering
wounded
feelings,
humiliation.
moral
shock,
Considering,
and
social
however,
that
21,
1978
to
October
23,
1978,
29
damages
that
are
way
out
of
30
FURTHER
REMEDIES
AND
RELIEFS
31
GOVERNMENT OF CALOOCAN,respondents.
The
rest
of
the
judgment
is
ROMERO, J.:
The clash between the responsibility of the City
Government of Caloocan to dispose off the 350
concern
of Appeals.
and
environment
sensitivity
of
the
to
residents
pollution-free
of
Barangay
with
this
Court
by
Laguna
Lake
G.R.
29449,
therein
the
undisputed.
On March 8, 1991, the Task Force Camarin
Dumpsite
of
Our
Lady
of
Lourdes
Parish,
as
Court
CA-G.R.
of
Appeals,
SP
in
open
garbage
dumpsite
in
Tala
investigation,
monitoring
and
test
personnel
found
that
the
City
an
Environmental
Compliance
Certificate
Environmental
1586, 4 and
under
Act
(ECC)
from
Presidential
No.
4850, 5 as
the
Decree
amended
No.
by
Presidential
contaminated
the
sample
during
LLDA
8
issued
Order ordering
the
Cease
City
and
Desist
Government
of
and
LLDA
at
the
Office
of
Environmental
may
issued
another
order
reiterating
the
Pending
resolution
of
its
motion
for
10
the
from
enforcing
Subsequently,
its
the
cease
case
and
was
desist
raffled
order.
to
the
trial
that
the
foregoing
cases,
being
treated separately.
On October 16, 1992, Judge Manuel Jn. Serapio,
after hearing the motion to dismiss, issued in the
consolidated cases an order 11 denying LLDA's
motion to dismiss and granting the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the
desist
order
issued
by
the
Laguna
Lake
dismiss.
to
the
Court
of
Appeals
for
proper
course
to
the
petition,
required
the
to
allow
the
respondents
to
find
restraining
order
should
be
maintained
or
On
April
30,
1993,
the
Court
of
Appeals
Secretary
authorized
appear.
Development
of
DENR
or
his
duly
Authority
has
no
power
and
Mayor
of
Caloocan
and/or
the
City
to
the
condition
that
any
future
and/or
the
City
Government
of
Government
Code,
17
to
determine
the
which
was
granted
regulatory
and
No.
4850
and
its
amendatory
laws,
Executive
Order
No.
927,
series
of
Sec.
4.
Additional
Powers
and
(d)
Make,
requiring
alter
the
or
modify
orders
discontinuance
of
time
within
which
regulations
such
under
such
conditions
as
it
may
or
operation
for
of
the
installation
sewage
works
or
the
orders
and
and
The
LLDA
claims
that
the
appellate
court
and
thereof.
cases
the
Camarin
as
open
dumpsite
in
Barangay
of
the
environment
that
requires
Republic
Act
No.
3931.
Under
said
Pollution
Control
Commission
19
with
generally
specialized
pertains
to
the
administrative
Pollution
agency,
is
obviously
has
the
responsibility
to
the
deleterious
effects
of
pollutants
surrounding
areas.
the
projects
proposed
offices/agencies
In
by
local
the
out
government
public
discuss
of the region.
within
carrying
region,
the
possibility
of
22
basis
the
open
dumpsite
project
of
the
City
of
the
facts
presented
in
this
case,
requiring
the
discontinuance
or
24
explicitly
authorizes
the
LLDA
Adjudication
Board
v. Court
of
pollution
Associate
laws
of
Justice
the
country.
Florentino
Theponente,
P.
power.
Feliciano,
declared:
Ex parte cease and desist orders are
stopping
commonplace
that
requirements
of
constitutional
the
ordinary
procedural
due
is
It
those
the
here
involved,
through
the
cannot
gives
be
made
to
wait
until
vitality
to
the
statement
on
ecology
29
related
issues
raised
which
are
more
Caloocan
and/or
the
City
Government
of
SO ORDERED.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
share
tenants
of
the
defendants;
that
the
1982 to be permanent;
4)
plaintiffs
to
seek
the
WHEREFORE,
Orders
coherent
with
the
plaintiffs
cases
in
the
above-entitled
individually
moral
and
hereby:
THOUSAND
(P10,000.00)
PESOS,
each;
attorney's
cultivation
P5,000.00; and
in
their
respective
landholdings;
7)
fees
Dismiss
all
in
the
other
amount
claims
of
and
water
supplying
landholdings;
plaintiffs'
following judgment:
In
this
petition,
reinstatement
of
the
the
prayer
moral
is
and
for
the
exemplary
landholding.
disturbance
of
possession,
such
as
the
act
freedom
the
away
the
emancipated
takes
attitude
Eduardo
The
plaintiff-appellant
is
Garcia,
which
state:
be
defendant-appellees,
paid
by
defendant
filing
be
highest
situation
sold
to
the
erode
wholehearted dedication to
these
cases,
for
what
the
dealing
with
plaintiffs,
defendants
is
no
showing
either
that
the
petition
is
500.00
vacate
their
landholdings.
damages
the
granted;
The
P2,500.00
respondents.
DOLORES
SO ORDERED.
FORTUN,
GEORGE
II
and
MA.
Manila
EN BANC
MARIA
VIOLETA
ALFARO,
MARIA
DESAMPARADO,
II
and
CRISTINE
CHARITY
SAENZ,
minors,
represented
by
MARY
ELLEN,
MAY,
GOLDA
minors,
Department
represented
by
their
parents
of
Environment
and
Natural
minors,
represented
ANTONIO
and
by
MARICA
their
ABAYA,
parents
MARILIN,
minors,
MARIO
represented
and
LINA
by
their
CARDAMA,
all
surnamed
OPOSA,
minors
and
and
ISAIAH
JAMES,
all
surnamed
MAX
and
VILMI
CRISANTO,
QUIPIT,
ANNA,
BUGHAW
DANIEL
and
which
the
petitioners
dramatically
responsibility"
and
"inter-
ECOLOGICAL
vs.
NETWORK,
INC., petitioners,
Mother Earth."
respective
parents.
Impleaded
as
an
but
are "so
numerous
that
it
is
minors
further
asseverate
that
they
representatives
resources.
The
original
Honorable
Fulgencio
S.
defendant
was
Factoran,
Jr.,
the
then
motion
by
the
petitioners. The
and
other
persons
processing,
new
renewing
timber
or
license
agreements.
and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs
just and equitable under the premises." 5
The
complaint
general
soil
found;
these
biological
indigenous
off
rainforests
and
irreplaceable;
existed,
starts
with
contain
chemical
they
are
Philippine
endured
and
the
pool
also
estimated
at
one
billion
which
is
habitat
of
which
have
since
time
the
cultures
genetic,
eroded
flourished
cultural
disappearance
deforestation
winds
environmental
have
resulted
tragedies,
in
such
a
as
host
(a)
of
communities,
which
of
the
result
including
Filipino's
from
the
the
indigenous
absence
of
water
Philippines
million
constituting
had
some
hectares
sixteen
of
roughly
(16)
rainforests
53%
of
the
detrimental
consequences
of
continued
and
matter
of
judicial
notice.
This
present
expert
witnesses
as
well
as
land area.
10. More recent surveys reveal that a
mere 850,000 hectares of virgin oldgrowth rainforests are left, barely 2.8%
of
the
entire
million
hectares
uneconomical
that:
forests.
mass
of
the
CAUSE OF ACTION
land
of
immature
secondary
and
growth
corporations
to
cut
the
adults.
14.
12.
At
the
present
rate
of
200,000
holidays
included
the
The
continued
allowance
by
to
plaintiffs
especially
serious
injury
and
15.
yet
and
the
unborn
are
environmental
evident
damages
Plaintiffs
have
clear
and
16.
Plaintiff
administrative
have
exhausted
remedies
with
all
the
TLA's
contrary
the
enunciated
Environmental
the country.
to
in
is
manifestly
public
the
Policy
policy
Philippine
which,
in
Annex "B".
17.
Defendant,
however,
fails
and
enjoyable
harmony
with
each
other;
(b) to fulfill the social, economic and
other requirements of present and
future generations of Filipinos and;
environmental
20.
quality
Furthermore,
continued
refusal
that
is
defendant's
to
cancel
the
to
perpetuation.
On
nature."
(Section
harmony
16,
natural
law
and
violative
of
Policy),
Section
16, Article II
of the
1987
of
man's
inalienable
right
to
self-
the
Constitution's
non-impairment
clause,
in
this
case
because
TLAs
are
not
logging totally.
As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs,
respondents submit that the same cannot be
done by the State without due process of law.
Once issued, a TLA remains effective for a certain
period of time usually for twenty-five (25)
forestry
nebulous
an
allegations
concerning
branches
of
Government.
They
laws
and
regulations.
Petitioners'
expounded,
it,
becomes
impracticable,
if
not
totally
considers
alia,
wildlife,
development
generations.
the
judicious
off-shore
areas
and
10
disposition,
and
utilization
utilization,
other
be
natural
equitably
for
defendant.
the
petitioners
and
rule
against
the
the
matter
impressed
with
before
political
it,
being
color
and
careful
and
circumspect
that
help
but
agree
with
the
principle
of
the
of
"Separation
three
(3)
of
co-equal
stretch
redress
cease
(Sec.
1,
Rule
2,
RRC).
our
and
accepting,
Complaint
approving
is
replete
with
vague
jurisdiction,
desist
from
processing,
new
grant
receiving,
renewing
timber
the
or
license
abhored
law.
(sic)
by
the
fundamental
11
among them.
specific
and
provides:
which
The
complaint
focuses
on
one
and
healthful
ecology
in
self-perpetuation
may
even
be
aptly
said
to
and
fittingly
predate
all
noise pollution?
MR. AZCUNA:
right
second, the day would not be too far when all else
carries
correlative
impairing
between
and
Commissioner
Commissioner
Adolfo
with
it
duty
the
the
of
not
same
and,
environmental balance.
to
12
MR. VILLACORTA:
the
necessarily
Wilfrido
(sic)
transpired
healthful
environment
exchange
to
provide
development,
management,
and
conservation
of
the
renewal,
country's
natural resources,
192,
14
13
quality
equitable
for
the
the
different
and
the
use
of
the
social
and
environmental
cost
natural resources.
of policy:
of
and
environment,
access
development
conservation,
the
of
ensure
the
sustainable
use,
reads:
and
resources.
development
judicious
as
well
disposition,
management,
as
the
utilization,
renewal
and
land,
waters,
wildlife,
off-shore
areas
fisheries,
and
other
of
maintaining
sound
the
environment
and
quality
the
of
objective
the
of
utilization
of
such
natural
conservation
of
our
natural
2. Mandate.
Department
of
(1)
Environment
The
and
into
environmental
account
cost
social
and
implications
utilization,
and
requirements
of
present
and
future
16
As
as trustee and
guardian
of
17
the
The
functions
under
E.O.
No.
192
and
the
20
InMilitante vs.
legal
the question
Edrosolano,
are
19
of
the
plaintiff,
18
that:
thereof
for
they
are
indispensable
parties.
courts
of
branches
put
in
of
issue.
Government
What
is
is
not
principally
involved is the enforcement of a right vis-avis 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
justice
to
settle
actual
legally
demandable
and
legislative
or
instrumentality
of
the
Government.
Commenting
book, Philippine
on
this
Political
provision
Law,
22
Mr.
in
his
Justice
first
part
of
the
authority
review
forbidden
political
what
was
before
departments
of
the
government.
the
even
Article
VII,
the
political
Section
1,
question.
of
the
23
the
case
our
jurisdiction,
grant
the
now
before
us,
the
and
accepting,
approving
desist
from
processing,
new
receiving,
renewing
timber
or
license
abhored
law.
(sic)
by
the
fundamental
24
have
the
and
Forestry,
acted
Government
with
by
utmost
infidelity
providing
undue
to
25
which
the
State
regulates
the
to
the
end
that
public
to
be
contract
do
what
unlawful,
We
otherwise
and
is
not
would
a
irrevocable
right
concession
area
amended,
does
rights,
Pres.
reiterated
not
create
this
irrevocable
pronouncement
in Felipe
26
by
the
which
the
State
utilization
and
to
the
and
modified,
Decree
amended. Also,
the
forest
replaced
No.
Tan
particular
v.
705,
Director
or
as
of
10.
obligation
passed.
No
law
of
contracts
27
cannot be invoked.
impairing,
shall
the
be
welfare.
constitutional
issuance
or
public
general welfare.
has
declaring
actually
the
been
cancellation
passed
mandating
28
In Abe
vs.
Foster
Wheeler
health,
moral,
safety
and
other
words,
guaranty
health,
safety,
of
the
non-
moral
and
Life
29
quoted in Philippine
Insurance
Co.
vs.
Auditor
General, 30 to wit:
Under our form of government the use
of
property
contracts
are
and
the
normally
making
of
matters
of
In
governmental
interference.
But
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
31
respect
to
the
prayer
to
enjoin
the
GANCAYCO, J.:
The authority of the local executive to protect the
community from pollution is the center of this
controversy.
The antecedent facts are related in the appealed
decision of the Court of Appeals as follows:
Pollution
Control
Commission
(now
Environmental Management Bureau) and is
now at a stage where the Environmental
Management Bureau is trying to determine
the correct kind of anti-pollution devise to
be installed as part of petitioner's request
for the renewal of its permit.
Petitioner's attention having been called to
its lack of mayor's permit, it sent its
representatives to the office of the mayor to
secure the same but were not entertained.
On April 6, 1989, without previous and
reasonable
notice
upon
petitioner,
respondent acting mayor ordered the
Municipality's
station
commander
to
padlock the premises of petitioner's plant,
thus effectively causing the stoppage of its
operation.
Left with no recourse, petitioner instituted
an
action
for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus with
preliminary
injunction against private respondent with
the court a quo which is presided by the
respondent judge. In its prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction, it alleged therein that the
closure order was issued in grave abuse of
discretion.
SO ORDERED.
The
writ
of
preliminary
mandatory
injunction was issued on April 28, 1989,
upon petitioner's posting a bond in the
amount of P50,000.00.
Private respondent filed his motion for
reconsideration dated May 3, 1989. Said
motion for reconsideration was heard on
May 30, 1989. Petitioner's counsel failed to
appear and the hearing proceeded with the
Provincial
Prosecutor
presenting
his
evidence. The following documents were
submitted:
a) Exhibit "A", Investigation report on the
Technology Developers Inc., prepared by one
Marivic Guina, and her conclusion and
recommendation read:
Due to the manufacturing process and
nature of raw materials used, the
fumes coming from the factory may
contain particulate matters which are
hazardous to the health of the people.
As such, the company should cease
operating until such a time that the
proper air pollution device is installed
and operational.
b) Exhibits "B", "B-1", "B-2", three (3) sheets
of coupon bond containing signatures of
With
health
risks
linked
to
exposure
to
clamoring
for
the
reversal
of
the
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
in
1996,
NAPOCOR
began
the
questioned project.
existence.
letter
dated
November
1999,
Napocor
cancer to leukemia.
President wrote:
We
NAPOCOR
received
flak
from
Representative
have
Option Cost
discussed
the
matter
with
the
Avenue P 111.84
million
(proposal of Dasmarias/Forbes)
health
3:
Construct
an
underground
to
themselves
and
their
lines
to
Lawton
Avenue,
Fort
Bonifacio.
of
overhead
and
underground)5
Negotiations
safety
Expressway
and
temporarily
restrained
the
respondent
from
petitioners
and
the
Acting
the other.
a Temporary
Restraining
Order
on
the
plaintiffs
"Urgent
Omnibus
the
instant
case,
as
prayed
for,
fishery,
March 2000.9
By order
10
to
Presidential
(1981), "Prohibiting
Decree
Courts
No.
from
1818
Issuing
public
forest
utility
or
other
operated
including
among
transport
of
other
the
natural
by
the
public
goods
or
resource
government,
utilities
for
commodities,
implementation or operation.
Cases
Involving
Infrastructure
and
Natural
Operated
by,
the
Government,"
Presidential
Decree
No.
1818
provides:
to
stay
respondent
NAPOCORs
to
issue
any
restraining
order,
involved.
In
the
Court
of
Appeals
rationale,
the
balance.
probability
of
irreparable
injury.14
II.
The
requires
on
that
preliminary
unless
injunction
restrained,
merely
the
act
restraining
orders
against
government
"No
court
in
the
jurisdiction
to
issue
preliminary
injunction
in the original.)
preliminary
injunction
to
enjoin
the
Philippines
shall
have
any
restraining
order,
or
preliminary
order,
infrastructure
projects.
In Garcia
v.
While
its
sole
provision
would
appear
to
natural
right
resource
development
and
public
issuing
injunctions
in
cases
involving
against
administrative
acts
in
18
to
health
of
the
people
and
instill
boot,
petitioners,
moreover,
harp
on
TRO
preliminary
the
case
and
from
subsequently,
the
protective
mantle
of
render
3. Grounds
for
issuance
of
preliminary
the
ineffectual.
(3a)
The
rule
requires
on
that
preliminary
unless
injunction
restrained,
merely
the
act
non-performance
judgment
(Emphasis supplied.)
provides:
Sec.
the
act
or
acts
the
conclusion
that
the
project
of
by
the
trial
court
of
writ
of
preliminary injunction.
Petitioners adduced in evidence copies of studies
linking the incidence of illnesses such as cancer
and leukemia to exposure to electromagnetic
fields. The records bear out, to boot, a copy of a
brochure of NAPOCOR regarding its Quezon
record
representations
residences.
Project
12-meter
And
the
easement
Quezon
that
Power
NAPOCOR
was
proposing to petitioners.
to
show
to
that
NAPOCOR
petitioners
that
made
they
are
Indeed,
up
1999
G.
with
and
questioned
of
Representative
which
Napocor
Francis
ignored
consultation requirements in
project.
the
Joseph
safety
with
if
there
options
is
to
no
cause
address
for
the
concern,
woes
of
True,
the
the
essentially
in.
transmission
issue
lines
of
whether
are
safe
or
is
not
possibility
that
the
exposure
to
indeed,
endanger
the
lives
of
the
earthquake
Marikina
faults,
particularly
the
calls
substantive
pending
where
Authority
right
v.
Cipres
to
health
Stevedoring
and
&
Arrastre,
Inc.,20 we held:
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at
any stage of an action prior to judgment of final
for
greater
the
right
circumspection
is
very
than
clear;
the
where
preliminary injunctions.
infrastructure
greater
economic
Circular 2-91
94.
23
21
good
projects,
by
disrupting
development
effort
particularly
the
of
pursuit
the
by
of
nation.
purpose
may
be.
For
what
use
will
and
safety,
but,
ostensibly,
to
life
WHEREFORE,
the
petition
is
granted.
The
is
hereby
pronouncement as to costs
SO ORDERED.
REINSTATED.
No
Mariano
Agas,
had
allegedly
represented
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
vs.
mandamus
to
compel
the
respondent
CORTES, J.:
instituted
The
fundamental
by
right
petitioner
of
the
Valentin
people
L.
Legaspi
The
Health
other
against
the
Civil
Department
Service
of
Commission.
Cebu
City.
These
presidential
issuances.
Prior
to
the
and
constitutional
right
to
documents,
and
papers
information
on
on
matters
public
papers
acts,
the
information.
pertaining
to
of
official
duty
to
afford
Hence,
access
the
to
sources
fundamental
of
right
Legislature
are
reasonable
conditions
and
of
necessity,
be
consistent
with
the
transactions
involving
public
interest
be
overemphasized
that
whatever
be
properly
invoked
in
mandamus
interposes
procedural
Solicitor
General
service
eligibilities
of
the
government
of
any
allegation
of
Legaspi's actual
relator
at
whose
instigation
the
interest
of
pecuniary
involves the
387).
The petitioner, being a citizen who, as such is
clothed with personality to seek redress for the
alleged obstruction of the exercise of the public
research
data
used
as
basis
for
policy
time
"subject
to
reasonable
conditions
Subject
properly
claim
to
be
constitutional
to
reasonable
disclosure
28).
In
of
all
its
conditions
transactions
constitutional
agents
to
afford
access
to
official
records,
The
which
included
or
excluded
from
such
the
records
Ozaeta, supra at
supplied).
absence
discretion
in
part
(Emphasis
the
es
the
not
agencia
on
388).
is
of
government
of
contain
allowing
registration
officers
to
concern
lands.
However,
the
regulations
which
the
to:
Applying
were
books
other
and
documents
by
and
analogy,
We
MJ,
5,
administrative
1976,
case
71
was
SCRA
filed
14).
against
Said
the
emphatic
in
Our
statement
that
the
mandamus
duty
public
agencies.
the
nation.
State
to
are
disclose
the
Otherwise,
information
the
unequivocably
enjoyment
The
decisive
propriety
the
issuance
of
this
case
is,
whether
the
forth
in
the
question
on
the
of
set
Constitution.
of
of
in
of
the
writ
scrutiny,
observed,
such
as
those
affecting
national
".
the
government
is
in
an
Review
This
question
is
first
addressed
1511
[1974]).
To
safeguard
the
to
the
examinations,
Sec. 2.[2]).
as
in
bar
examinations
and
occupying
the
position
becomes