Cases in Natural Resources and Environmental Law (4)

Phoebe C. Balubar
TThF, 7:30-8:30
GR No. 164527, August 15, 2007
Francisco Chavez v National Housing Authority

Facts:
It was in 1988 when President Corazon Aquino issued Memorandum 161
which directed the implementation of the Comprehensive and Integrated
Metropolitan Manila Waste Management Plan. The Metro Manila
Commsion was also created in coordination with various government
agencies and was tasked as the lead agency to implement the plan.
The National Housing Authority was tasked to conduct feasibility studies
and develop low-cost housing projects at the Smokey Mountain, a
wasteland located in Balut, Tondo, Manila. The DENR on the other hand
was tasked to “review and evaluate proposed projects under the Plan with
regards to their environmental impact, conduct regular monitoring of
activities prescribed in the plan and to ensure compliance with
environmental standards and assist the DOG in conducting the study on
hospital waste management.
By 1992, President Videl Ramos issued Proclamation 39 which transferred
the reclamation area under the administration and disposition of the NHA.
Also, the R-II Builders (RBI) entered into a Joint Venture Agreement for the
development of the Smokey Mountain Dumpsite. The Agreement was later
on amended which modified the material and substantial aspects of the
project. The NHA and RBI then decided to enter into a Supplemental
Agreement.
In 1998, the President Joseph Estrada failed to upon the approval of the
agreement. This led to the NHA to grant RBI’s request to suspend work on
the Project. By 2002, the Housing and Urban Development Council
(HUDCC) the government decided to bid out the remaining works which
unilaterally terminated the Project. RBI then demanded payment for
compensation. Meanwhile, the Harbour Centre Port Terminal Inc. (HCPTI)
entered into an agreement with the NHA for the development and
operations of a port in the Smokey Mountain Area.
In 2004, Solicitor General Francisco Chavez filed a petition raising
constitutional issues over the matter. He impleaded as respondents NHA,
RBI, R-II Holdings, HCPTI and Mr. Reghis Romero II. NHA reported that
the temporary and permanent housing structures had been turned over by
RBI and that beneficiary-families had already been transferred to their
permanent homes that was a product of the project.
Issue:
Whether the prohibition and mandamus is a proper remedy to compel
parties on varying actions on a government project

Ruling:
The Solicitor General claims that the jurisdiction over the petitions for
prohibition and mandamus is consistent or in line with the Regional Trial
Courts and the Court of Appeals. NHA argues that the instant petition is
misfiled because it does not introduce any special and important reasons or
compelling circumstances to warrant such direct recourse.
Moreover, there are more serious constitutional issues found on the
different aspects of the Project that directly affects the right of Filipinos to
the distribution of natural resources and their right to be properly informed
with matters that directly concern them.
GR No. 163663, June 30, 2006
Greater Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste Management Committee v
JANCOM Environmental Corporation

Facts:
Presidential Memorandum Order No. 202 was issued by President Fidel
Ramos in 1994. The order created an Executive Committee tasked to
supervise and develop waste-to-energy projects for waste disposal sites in
Rizal and Carmona. It was intended to be under the Build-Operate-Transfer
scheme. JANCOM International Development Projects Pty. Limited was an
Australian company and entered to bid to take the project on the Rizal Site.
Eventually, it entered into a partnership with Asea Brown Boveri. The
Executive Committee declared JANCOM as the sole bidder of the Rizal
Waste Disposal Site. It was then issued a contract to commence the
project. The project was entered by JANCOM, the Greater Metropolitan
Manila Solid Waste Management Committee (GMMSWMC) and the Metro
Manila Development Authority (MMDA).
The contract was then submitted to President Ramos for approval who
endorsed it the President Joseph Estrada who was the incoming president
at that time. However, being the politician that he is, he owed the residents
a favor. The residents of Rizal were not too kind and had opposed the
project and had sought confidence in the new president that he would take
matters in his own hand. The Estrada administration then ordered the
closure of the San Mateo Landfill. The GMMSWMC then adopted a
resolution to no longer pursue the contract it entered with JANCOM and
citing the enforcement of the RA 8749 and the closure of the San Mateo
site.
JANCOM then filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig to
declare the new resolutions done by the GMMSWMC and the MMDA to
forge a new contract for the Metro Manila Waste Management Plan illegal,
unconstitutional and void. They also want to compel the respondent parties
to implement the Resolution that it had entered with them.
The Trial Court ruled in favor of JANCOM which was affirmed by the Court
of Appeals.
JANCOM and MMDA later on entered into negotiations to modify certain
provisions of the contract they had entered into but had no signature of the
parties. JANCOM then filed an Omnibus Motion for a writ of execution to
compel the enforcement of the contract.
Issue:
Whether a contract is ineffective and unenforceable until it is approved by
the President.

Ruling:
The only question that the Court needs to question is whether or not there
is a valid and perfected contract between the parties. To determine
necessity, expedience and the substance of the contract are outside the
realms of judicial adjudication. These are aspects are up to the executive to
decide. That while in technical terms, the contract is already perfected, it
has to be noted that this is a contract being entered into with the
government. It should be noted that the President, being the chief
executive should be the forefront of its enforcement. Therefore, while the
contract is valid in all aspects, given its nature, it cannot be enforced
without the virtue of the office of the President who is made to the face of
the public and national interest.
GR No. 158290, October 23, 2006
Hilarion Heneras Jr, et al v Land Transportation Franchising and
Regulatory Board

Facts:

Particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of dust, dirt, smoke and liquid
droplets varying in sizes and compositions. These are known to be emitted
into the air by various engine combustion. Petitioners allege that PMs have
caused detrimental effects on health, productivity and overall quality of life.

In an attempt to counter the detrimental effects of PM often found and

produced by PUVs, the petitioners proposed the use of CNG. According to
them, CNG is a natural gas comprised mostly of methane which although
containing small amounts of propane and butane, is colorless and odorless
and is considered the cleanest fossil fuel because it produces less
pollutants than coal and petroleum. It has been reported that it produces up
to 90 percent less CO compares to gasoline and fuel, cuts hydrocarbon
emissions by half, emits 60 percent PMs and releases virtually no sulfur
dioxide.

The petitioners asserted their right to clean air and filed a petition for
mandamus to order the LTFRB to require PUV’s to use CNG as an
alternative fuel. They have cited the ruling of Oposa v Factoran, Article II of
the Constitution and Section 4 of the Philippine Clean Air Act.

Meanwhile, the Solicitor General cited Section 3, Rule 65 of the Revised

Rules of Court and stated that a writ of mandamus is not the proper remedy
and that nothing in the Philippine Clean Air Act includes the prohibition of
the use of gasoline and diesel on vehicles. Also, that the Clean Air act does
not include CNG as an alternative source of fuel so unless stated by law,
the petitioners cannot propose.

The Solicitor General also highlight that it is the DENR who has the primary
task of implementing the Clean Air Act and the LTFRB nor the DOTC. Also,
that the DOE is the one required to set the specifications for all types of fuel
and fuel-related products to improve fuel compositions for improved
efficiency and reduced emissions. Hence the petition for mandamus is
bereft of merit.

Issue:

Whether the respondent can comply public utility vehicles to change their
fuel through mandamus?

Ruling:

No.
First of all, it’s a matter of technicality. Section 3, Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Court sets the following requisites for mandamus: 1) against any
tribunal which unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty; 2) in case any corporation, board or person
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a
duty resulting from an office, trust or station; and 3) in case any tribunal,
corporation, board or person unlawfully excludes another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is legally entitled; and
there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law.
The writ of mandamus is simply a command to exercise a power already
possessed and to perform a duty already imposed.

Therefore, it can be stated, that in the case, there is no law that mandates
the respondents to order motor vehicle owners to change. The Court
contends that the clamor for improving air quality standards in the country
as a national agenda should be first be forwarded to the legislature before
the action of mandamus can be taken.
GR No. 146360, May 20, 2004
Azucena Salalima v Employees Compensation Commission and SSS

Facts:

Juancho Salalima was employed for twenty-nine years as a route helper

and subsequently as route salesman for the Meycauayan Plant of Coca-
Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. In 1989, during an annual company medical
examination, Juancho was diagnosed with minimal pulmonary tuberculosis.
He rallied through his illness until he was confined in 1994 and later on died
in 1995 due to Adenocarcinoma of the lungs.

His widow and herein petitioner, filed a claim for compensation benefits
under PD 626 with the SSS.

In a report in 1998, physicians supported the denial of the petitioner and

claimed that Juancho’s cause of death had no causal relationship with his
job as a salesman. Petitioner filed for a motion for reconsideration but the
decision was later affirmed by the Employees’ Compensation
Commission.

Petitioner then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals and contended
that Juancho’s route as a salesman exposed him to all kinds of pollutants
and also the daily hazards and fatigue that came with his tasks. The
petitioner alleged that his health condition was exacerbated for the worse
because of his job. She also raised the Clean Air Act that highlights the
creation of a comprehensive pollution control policy that concentrates on
the prohibition of leaded gasoline due to its proven effects on human
health.

However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decisions of the ECC.

Issue:

Whether pollution could be a ground or be considered a work-related

incident for damages

Ruling:

Yes.

The Court agrees with the petitioner that the respondent government
agencies failed to take into consideration Juancho’s medical history in their
assessment of the claim for benefits filed by the petitioner. It should be
noted that during Juancho’s stay at Coca-Cola, he was found to be
suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. Several months after his death, he
was diagnosed with pneumonia. The combination of fatigue and the
pollutants that surrounded him in his work did contribute to his already
weak respiratory system. His continuous exposure to these factors may
have led to the development of his cancer. It should also be noted that
Juancho’s job requires long hours on the streets, as well as his carrying of
soft drinks during sales calls. It is clear that he had prolonged exposure to
pollutants.

Also, PD 626 only demands merely substantial evidence which means

“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion”. The law demands a reasonable work-connection
and not a direct causal relation.
GR No. 156052, March 7, 2007
Social Justice Society v Hon. Jose Atienza

Facts:

The Pandacan Oil Depot was a 33-hectare compound in Pandacan Manila.

The operations of the oil depot had raised concerns, particularly
environmental and health concerns amongst residents.

On November 20, 2001, the Sangguniang Panglungsod ng Manila enacted

Ordinance No. 8027. The respondent mayor approved the ordinance eight
days later.

The ordinance reclassified the Pandacan Oil Dept from industrial to

commercial and directed the owners and operators of businesses to cancel
their operations within six months from the date of effectivity of the
ordinance. Caltex Petron and Pilipinas Shell were known to have been
operating their terminals in the areas.

However, on June 26, 2002, the City of Manila and the Department of
Energy entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) along with
the oil companies and agreed to scale down operations instead of fully
cancelling it.

Now, petitioners filed an original action for mandus, compelling Mayor

Atienza to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 in order to have the oil terminals
removed in the area.

Issue:

Whether or not the Mayor should be compelled to enforce the said

ordinance

Ruling:

Yes.

Under Rule 65, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, a petition for mandamus
may be filed when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. It is an
extraordinary writ that is employed to compel the performance, when
refused, of a ministerial duty that is already imposed on the respondent and
there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.

It was clear that the petitioners have a direct interest in the enforcement of
the city’s ordinances as they are residents of Manila. There is a law or
action waiting for enforced therefore it is affirmed that the action for
mandamus is valid.

Also, the Local Government Code imposes upon the duty of a city to
“enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the city. It is
clearly observed that the Sanggunian wants to enforce the law hence the
affirmation of the ordinance. Therefore, the mayor should be compelled to
enforce it.