You are on page 1of 14

I. Cases relating to the Civil Code Provisions on Environment (R.A. No.

386)
G.R. No. L-65935 September 30, 1988
FILINVEST
CREDIT
CORPORATION,
petitioner,
vs.
THE
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and NESTOR B. SUÑGA JR.,
respondents.
Labaguis, Loyola, Angara Law Offices for petitioner.
Juan C. Navarro, Jr. for private respondent.
Ponente: Sarmiento, J.
FACTS:
Nestor B. Sunga, Jr. filed in the trial court a case for damages. Sunga
alleged that he purchased a minivan from Motor Center, Inc. on March 21, 1978
and executed a promissory note “to cover the amount of P62, 592.00 payable
monthly in the amount of P2,608.00 for 24 months due and payable the 1st day of
each month starting May 1, 1978 thru and inclusive of May 1, 1980.” In addition,
he also executed a chattel mortgage in favour of the Motor Center, Inc. The chattel
mortgage was assigned to the Filinvest Credit Corporation which was confirmed
by the Sunga.
On October 21, 1978, the minivan was seized by the Filinvest Credit
Corporation on account of Sunga’s delinquency on account of a balance which was
already past its due. Sunga’s accounts were verified and it was found out that said
accounts are in order and the minivan was, therefore, returned to Sunga.
The following was the trial court’s decision:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby renders judgment
as follows, to wit:
(1) ORDERING the defendant Filinvest Credit Corporation to pay the
plaintiff Nestor Sunga Jr. the following damages, to wit:
(a) Moral Damages P30,000.00
(b) Loss on Income of the minibus for three days 600.00
(c) Actual damages 500.00
(d) Litigation expenses 5,000.00
(e) Attorney's Fees 10,000.00
(2) And to pay the costs.”
The Filinvest Credit Corporation filed an appeal to the Intermediate
Appelate Court (now Court of Appeals). The Intermediate Appelate Court
affirmed the decision of the trial court except with regard to moral damages. Said
court increased the moral damages from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. Thus, the
Filinvest Credit Corporation filed a “petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court” stating that the respondent court committed a “grave abuse of
discretion in increasing extravagantly the award of moral damages.”

1|Page

000.” Thus.” HELD: According to the court.ISSUE: Whether the Intermediate Appelate court committed a “grave abuse of discretion in increasing extravagantly the award of moral damages. the court held that the Intermediate Appelate court committed a “grave abuse of discretion in increasing extravagantly the award of moral damages. “The award of moral damages is REDUCED to P10.00. "Well settled is the rule in this jurisdiction that whenever an appeal is taken in a civil case an appellee who has not himself appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the decision of the court below.” 2|Page .” The court granted the petition and modified the questioned decision of the Intermediate Appelate Court." The respondent court disregarded the said rule by increasing the moral damages which is an indication of “grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

The City Legal Officer & Chief. Caloocan City against the “dumping of garbage in the open dumpsite in Barangay Camarin authorized by the City Government” because such open garbage dumpsite endangers the “health. resumed the dumping of garbage. COURT OF APPEALS. No. Hidalgo and Ma.G.” Acting on the complaint. HON.D. and welfare of the residents therein and the sanitation and quality of the water in the area brought about by exposure to pollution. under its Charter and its amendatory laws. MACARIO A. Barangay Camarin. Teresa T. Law Department for Mayor Macario A. FACTS: Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) received a complaint from the Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish. have the authority to entertain the complaint against the dumping of garbage in the open dumpsite in Barangay Camarin? B. as required under Presidential Decree No. Alberto N. and other entities. ISSUES: A. LLDA conducted an investigation on the site and found that the City Government of Caloocan was maintaining an open dumpsite without “securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources. The Court of Appeals affirmed the position of the City Government stating. HON. 1586.” The City Government complied but later on. Metropolitan Manila Authority. Presiding Judge RTC. 927. 927.. 813 and Executive No. Asistio.” Hence. “the Laguna Lake Development Authority has no power and authority to issue a cease and desist order under its enabling law. No. ASISTIO. safety. The City Government assailed the authority of LLDA in its capacity to issue a Cease and Desist Order against it. their contractors. as amended by Presidential Decree No. 813 and Executive No. 1994 LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. vs. Branch 127. stop and desist from dumping any form or kind of garbage and other waste matter at the Camarin dumpsite. as amended by P. Jr. SERAPIO. 4850 and its amendatory laws?” 3|Page . 110120 March 16. LLDA issued a Cease and Desist Order “ordering the City Government of Caloocan. Ponente: Romero. series of 1983. series of 1983. City Mayor of Caloocan and/or THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF CALOOCAN. to completely halt. and the City Government of Caloocan. petitioner.” Thus. respondents.R. JR. “Does the LLDA have the power and authority to issue a "cease and desist" order under Republic Act No. 4850. Caloocan City. Republic Act No. MANUEL JN. and clearance from LLDA as required under Republic Act No. J. LLDA filed a petition for review of certiorari. 4850. Does the LLDA. Oledan for petitioner.

Quezon and Caloocan with due regard and adequate provisions for environmental management and control. cannot be stamped as an unauthorized exercise by the LLDA of injunctive powers. par. Yes. 927. by virtue of its special charter. the LLDA is mandated. and other relevant environment laws. 4850. Under such a broad grant and power and authority. It must be recognized in this regard that the LLDA. (d) explicitly authorizes the LLDA to make whatever order may be necessary in the exercise of its jurisdiction. as a specialized administrative agency. Manila. as amended by P. obviously has the responsibility to protect the inhabitants of the Laguna Lake region from the deleterious effects of pollutants emanating from the discharge of wastes from the surrounding areas. as amended. 4850.” LLDA’s jurisdiction under its charter was validly invoked by the filling of the letter-complaint from the Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish. Republic Act No. to pass upon and approve or disapprove all plans. Yes. The court held that “The cease and desist order issued by the LLDA requiring the City Government of Caloocan to stop dumping its garbage in the Camarin open dumpsite found by the LLDA to have been done in violation of Republic Act No. Caloocan City. series of 1983. B. The court held that “the adjudication of pollution cases generally pertains to the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB). programs and/or projects are related to those of the LLDA for the development of the region. the LLDA. among others.HELD: A. 813 and Executive Order No. 4850 and its amendatory laws to carry out and make effective the declared national policy of promoting and accelerating the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces of Rizal and Laguna and the cities of San Pablo. deterioration and pollution.D. In carrying out the aforementioned declared policy. and projects proposed by local government offices/agencies within the region. alter or modify order requiring the discontinuance or pollution. Barangay Camarin. except in cases where the special law provides for another forum. By its express terms. and private persons or enterprises where such plans. and the prevention of undue ecological disturbances.” 4|Page . authorizes the LLDA to "make. preservation of the quality of human life and ecological systems. public corporations. Pasay. is specifically mandated under Republic Act No. programs. No." (Emphasis supplied) Section 4.

HON. DIEGO AND NENA All Surnamed PEREZ. AND FRANCISCO HERRERA. FACTS: The petitioners claimed that they were share tenants of the defendants. 4) Orders plaintiffs to seek the assistance of the Ministry of Agrarian Reforms in the fixing of their lease rentals. Deles for petitioner.00. Jose Valmayor for respondents. Ponente: Abad Santos. SR. in judgment. 5|Page . L-66870-72 June 29. in dealing with plaintiffs. The trial court stated that. each. 5) Orders the defendants to pay all the six plaintiffs in the above-entitled cases individually moral and exemplary damages in the sum of TEN THOUSAND (P10. 28-29. There is no evidence showing that. is violative of the law. coherent with the foregoing. J.R. The defendants “diverted the free flow of water from their farm lots which caused portions of their landholdings to dry up to their great damage and prejudice. CARLITO HERRERA. PAQUITO LOPEZ. INENIAS MARTIZANO. 6) Orders the defendants to pay the attorney's fees in the amount of P5.G.000. vs.00) PESOS. pp. There is no showing either that attorney’s fees are recoverable under Art.. 1982 to be permanent. “under the law.” The petitioners were also told to “vacate their respective areas for they could not plant palay any longer due to lack of water. defendants acted fraudulently or in bad faith. 3) Declares the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued on February 23. petitioners. such as the act complained of. The trial court granted the petition. 1985 AGAPITO MAGBANUA. the landowner has an obligation to keep the tenant in the peaceful and continuous cultivation of his landholding. as well as attorney’s fees. BUTCH. A disturbance of possession. “We are not inclined to sustain the award of moral and exemplary damages. Romulo A.” The trial court rendered held that: “WHEREFORE. Nos.” The petitioners prayed that the defendants be ordered to pay attorney’s fees and damages. hereby: 1) Declares all the plaintiffs in the above-entitled cases to be maintained as agricultural lessees in peaceful cultivation in their respective landholdings. The Intermediate Appellate Court stated. respondents.000. 2) Prohibits defendants from closing and/or disrupting the free flow of water supplying plaintiffs' landholdings. EDUARDO. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND SPECIAL CASES DIVISION). and 7) Dismiss all other claims and counterclaims of the parties for lack of merit (Rollo. this Court.)” The defendants herein appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court.

Civil Code.” 6|Page . “Article 2219 of the Civil Code permits the award of moral damages for acts mentioned in Article 21 of the same code and the latter stipulates that: “Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals.2298. “The petitioners are also entitled to exemplary damages because the defendants acted in an oppressive manner. the decision under review is modified and each of the plaintiffs is entitled to the following to be paid by the defendants jointly and severally: Moral damages Exemplarly damages Attorney's fees — P1.” ISSUE: Whether the plaintiffs should be awarded moral and exemplary damages and the attorney’s fees.00 The costs shall be assessed against the private respondents.00 — P500. the petitioners prayed for the “reinstatement of the moral and exemplary damages and the attorney’s fees.)” They are also entitled to attorneys fees in view of the foregoing.00 P2.” Thus.00 — P1. HELD: The court held that the petitioners should be awarded moral and exemplary damages and the attorney’s fees.000.”” The act of the defendants for denying the irrigation water was done for the petitioners to vacate their areas. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. “WHEREFORE.500. SO ORDERED. Civil Code. 2232. (See Art. the petition is granted. Thus.000. the defendants violated the rights of the petitioners and caused prejudice to the latter.

all surnamed CARDAMA. ROSARIO. respondents. AMANDA SALUD and PATRISHA. and IMEE LYN. all surnamed MISA. represented by their parents FRANCISCO. represented by their parents JOSE MAX and VILMI QUIPIT. represented by their parents ANTONIO and MARICA ABAYA. represented by her parents SIGRID and DOLORES FORTUN.. MA. represented by their parents ROBERTO and AURORA SAENZ. BUGHAW CIELO. JR. all surnamed OPOSA. all surnamed OPOSA. vs. DANIEL and FRANCISCO. represented by their parents MARIO and HAYDEE KING. minors. represented by her parents JOSE and ANGELA DESAMPRADO. CONCEPCION. MAY. Branch 66. ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO. as a “taxpayers’ class suit”. instituted a complaint and alleged that the they “are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines. Presiding Judge of the RTC. represented by her parents FREDENIL and JANE CASTRO. represented by his parents ANTONIO and ALICE PESIGAN. represented by their parents BALTAZAR and TERESITA ENDRIGA. minors. 1993 JUAN ANTONIO. FORTUN. CASTRO. represented by their parents MARIO and LINA CARDAMA. all surnamed BIBAL. No. JR. FRANCISCO and THERESE VICTORIA. NAGEL. all surnamed ABAYA. minors. Oposa Law Office for petitioners. and MARIETTE. ANN MARIE. Makati. and REGINA MA. and MILAGROS BIBAL. PHILIP JOSEPH. minor. minor. represented by his parents GREGORIO II and CRISTINE CHARITY NARVASA. CARLO JOAQUIN T. taxpayers. 101083 July 30.. PESIGAN. GOLDA MARTHE and DAVID IAN. and represented by their parents ANTONIO and RIZALINA OPOSA. NARVASA. minors. minor. J. minors and represented by their parents GEORGE and MYRA MISA. CLARISSA. minors. minor. minor. ANNA. BENJAMIN ALAN V. all surnamed SAENZ. ANGELA and MARIE GABRIELLE. Jr. all surnamed FLORES. JESUS IGNACIO. CRISANTO. JR. KRISTINE. minors. The Solicitor General for respondents. STEPHEN JOHN and ISAIAH JAMES. represented by her parents JOSE and MARIA VIOLETA ALFARO. minor. MARIA CONCEPCION T. and THE PHILIPPINE ECOLOGICAL NETWORK. THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. JOHANNA DESAMPARADO. Ponente: Davide. all surnamed KING.R. petitioners. JOVIE MARIE ALFARO. minor. JOSE MA. MARIO. minors and represented by their parents ENRICO and NIDA FLORES. MA. GIANINA DITA R. FACTS: The petitioners. minors.G.. represented by her parents CALVIN and ROBERTA SADIUA. INC. MARGARITA. all surnamed ENDRIGA. DAVID. FACTORAN. all surnamed QUIPIT. ROBERTA NICOLE SADIUA. CARLO. GEORGE II and MA. MARY ELLEN. and THE HONORABLE ERIBERTO U.. minors and represented by their parents RICARDO and MARISSA OPOSA. minors. in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. MARILIN. 7|Page .

“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. HELD: The court held that the petitioners have a cause of action.” “A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology. it is prayed for that judgment be rendered: . Such a right. his agents. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can. ordering defendant.ordering defendant.” The complaint was filed for themselves and others who are “equally concerned about the preservation of said resource but are “so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the court.” “Consequently. representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to — (1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country. II of the 1987 Constitution which states. and granting the plaintiffs “. ISSUE: Whether the petitioners have a cause of action. Under Sec. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLAs.”” The petitioners also asserted that “the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice. for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations. Art. 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.. renewing or approving new timber license agreements. as hereinafter expounded.” The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case for the reason that the said petitioners have no cause of action against him. (2) Cease and desist from receiving. his agents.” “The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to several. 8|Page .” “Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to — . such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises. .and entitled to the full benefit. which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion.16. considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature. . . use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country’s virgin tropical forests. accepting. but to all citizens of the Philippines. file a class suit. for themselves. processing..” Nature means the created world in its entirety.”” The petitioners also stated that they represent not only their generation but also the “generations yet unborn. .

an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of the other. the court found that there is a cause of action for the petitioners. 9|Page . correlative obligation of the defendant. .” “A cause of action is defined as: . the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted. .hence. and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.” In view of the foregoing. and its essential elements are legal right of the plaintiff.

vs. Adriano & Gregorio Law Office for petitioners. HELD: The court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. FACTS: Plaintiffs filed an action for abatement of public nuisance against the Daytona Construction and Development Corporation. JR.. respondents. JOSE P. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and DAYTONA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. SACHA DEL ROSARIO. 31. and ENECERIO MONDIA.” According to the plaintiffs who live near the construction site. The Intermediate Appellate Court ruled in favour of the defendant. 1979 xxx it was somehow allowed to operate way beyond said period. Thus.” 10 | P a g e . J. Their plants. In response. Balgos & Perez Law Office for respondents.G. Pelaez. Ponente: Paras. with cement batching plant. RODRIGUEZ. ISSUE: Whether the action for abatement of public nuisance should be granted. Among the conditions set forth in the permit are that the said batching plant shall (1) institute measures to prevent dust emission during the manual charging of cement from bags to the receiving hopper of the bucket elevator of the batching plant. ZENAIDA Z. 1987 ERNESTO R. themselves. RODRIGUEZ III. they suffered from the pollution caused by the corporation. 74816 March 17. ERNESTO LL. pets. “Declaring the operation of the cement batching plant of the defendant corporation as a nuisance and ordering its permanent closure.R. they filed an action for abatement of public nuisance in the Trial Court. RODRIGUEZ. While the original permit issued to the defendant stated that its operation at the place shall `not (be) beyond Dec. The action for abatement of public nuisance was therefore granted. Said defendant is a domestic corporation which received a business permit from the City Government. are in distress. No. the court reinstated the decision of the trial court. (2) remove all sediment deposit in the settling of tank for process water and proper maintenance should be observed at all times. The business permit was issued for the “manufacture of road and building concrete materials such as concrete aggregates. trees. Thus. petitioners. The defendant’s actions are tainted with fraud. The defendant intended to delay the case in order for it to continue its operation. the defendant filed a petition to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action despite being granted four extensions in the filing of their answers. and they. GENITO.

“No mayor's permit had been secured. RTC. b) Mayor's permit. BULACAN. Acting Mayor and the MUNICIPALITY OF STA. Thus.” “The closure order of the Acting Mayor was issued only after an investigation was made by Marivic Guina who in her report of December 8.” It was called upon by the acting mayor Cruz who ordered “the full cessation of the operation” and requested the plaintiff to bring to bring the following: “a) Building permit. HON. J. the herein defendants filed a petition on review for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. INC. NARCISO T. Bulacan. COURT OF APPEALS. and of other document. petitioner. vs. thus effectively causing the stoppage of its operation. ATIENZA as Presiding Judge. Ponente: Gancayco. 94759 January 21.R. While it is true that the matter of determining whether there is a pollution of the environment that requires control if not prohibition of the operation of a business is essentially addressed to the then National Pollution Control Commission of the Ministry of Human Settlements.” The plaintiff complied with all but one of the requirements. MARIA. “respondent acting mayor ordered the Municipality's station commander to padlock the premises of petitioner's plant. ISSUE: Whether the corporation should be allowed to continue..” 11 | P a g e . it must be recognized that the mayor of a town has as much responsibility to protect its inhabitants from pollution. and HON. Peralta for petitioner. The corporation failed to obtain the Mayor’s permit.” The plaintiff prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction alleging therein that “the closure order was issued in grave abuse of discretion.” The trial court granted the issuance of the writ. HELD: The court ruled that the corporation should not be allowed to continue. 1988 observed that the fumes emitted by the plant of petitioner goes directly to the surrounding houses and that no proper air pollution device has been installed. General Environmental Laws G. he may deny the application for a permit to operate a business or otherwise close the same unless appropriate measures are taken to control and/or avoid injury to the health of the residents of the community from the emissions in the operation of the business. 1991 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS. Diosdado P. and by virtue of his police power. now the Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.II. c) Region IIIPollution of Environment and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution Permit. VICENTE CRUZ. No. In response. respondents. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court. FACTS: Plaintiff is a domestic private corporation “engaged in the manufacture and export of charcoal briquette.

CARLOS VIAPLANA. ALF HOLST. VIVENCIO TINIO.” They filed a writ of preliminary injunction against NAPOCOR “to stay the latter from energizing and transmitting high voltage electric current through its cables erected from Sucat. J. 1818 aims to avert is the untimely frustration of government infrastructure projects. HOMER GO. the plaintiffs. MARCOS ROCES. Presidential Decree No. HELD: The court ruled in affirmative. EMILIO CHING. safety and well-being of a community guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land” 12 | P a g e . MA. NORMA GAFFUD. petitioners vs. MICHAEL BRIGGS. No. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION. 145328 March 23. II of the 1987 Constitution states that. ROQUE. 15. ROBERT KUA. They found out that there are “health risks linked to exposure to electromagnetic radiation. ANTONIO CHAN. Sec. ENCARBACION R. MANUEL DY. CARL FURER. RAYMUNDO FELICIANO. LOURDES P. CHI MO CHENG. 2006 EDUARDO F. GEORGE LEE. “The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill consciousness among them. was not meant to be a blanket prohibition so as to disregard the fundamental right to health. and HON. ENRIQUE BELO. Parañaque to Araneta Ave. respondent Ponente: Chico-Nazario. FACTS: National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) began “construction of 29 decagon-shaped steel poles or towers with a height of 53. However. LEGASPI. BARANGAY DASMARIÑAS. Out of concern.” “What Presidential Decree No. JUAN CARLOS. Court of Appeals ruled in favour of NAPOCOR. JR. NAPOCOR appealed assailing that the Regional Trial Court cannot issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction under Presidential Decree No. ROSA CARAM. particularly by provisional remedies. FRANCISCO B. Quezon City.4 meters to support overhead high tension cables in connection with its 230 Kilovolt Sucat-AranetaBalintawak Power Transmission Project” in 1996... residents of Dasmariñas Village. to the detriment of the greater good by disrupting the pursuit of essential government projects or frustrate the economic development effort of the nation.G.” The Regional Trial Court ruled in favour of them. GUILLERMO LUCHANGCO. FAUSTO PREYSLER. 1818. Art. VICTORIA TENGCO. IBAY. researched for the possible effects of the said construction. MURLI SABNANI. AMADEO VALENZUELA. LUISA MARQUEZ. however. ISSUE: Whether the trial court may issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. JAIME BLANCO. HERNANDEZ. PETER DEE.R. ANGELITA LILLES. 1818. RAUL FERNANDEZ.

1976. LEGASPI. “In the final analysis.S. The law may therefore exempt certain types of information from public scrutiny. such as those affecting national security (Journal No.. September 24.” 13 | P a g e . B. 88. (b) not being exempted by law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee.G. “The incorporation in the Constitution of a guarantee of access to information of public concern is a recognition of the essentiality of the free flow of ideas and information in a democracy (Baldoza v. 10. the availability of access to a particular public record must be circumscribed by the nature of the information sought. Adm. In the same way that free discussion enables members of society to cope with the exigencies of their time (Thornhill vs. L-72119 May 29. and. 90. The petitioner seeks to be informed of “the eligibilities of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas” who are “employed as sanitarians in the Health Department of Cebu City”. It follows that. Sec. by competitive examination. 1986.” HELD: The court ruled in affirmative. The Constitution expressly declares as a State policy that: Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be determined. vs.[2]). It does not open every door to any and all information.e. and Journal No. Matter No. papers. and except as to positions which are policy determining. are "subject to limitations as may be provided by law" (Art. i. (Art. September 23. IX. it is for the courts to determine in a case by case basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance. access to official records. Sec. 7. Ponente: Cortes. respondent. p. 310 U. p.R.102 [1939]). 1120-MJ. Alabama.. 1986 Constitutional Commission). petitioner. May 5. primarily confidential or highly technical. 17 SCRA 14). III.” “But the constitutional guarantee to information on matters of public concern is not absolute. FACTS: The petitioner invoked the right to be informed under the Constitution. Dimaano.” ISSUE: Whether the “information sought is of public interest or public concern.” “The information sought by the petitioner in this case is the truth of the claim of certain government employees that they are civil service eligibles for the positions to which they were appointed. No. second sentence). 1987 VALENTIN L. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 91. etc. in every case. Under the Constitution. access to information of general interest aids the people in democratic decision-making (87 Harvard Law Review 1505 [1974]) by giving them a better perspective of the vital issues confronting the nation. (a) being of public concern or one that involves public interest. 2. 32. as far as practicable. as it relates to or affects the public. 1986. J.

therefore lies. [Const. XI.” “WHEREFORE. and in the absence of express limitations under the law upon access to the register of civil service eligibles for said position. the duty of the respondent Commission to confirm or deny the civil service eligibility of any person occupying the position becomes imperative. for said position in the Health Department of Cebu City. the Civil Service Commission is ordered to open its register of eligibles for the position of sanitarian. Public officers are at all times accountable to the people even as to their eligibilities for their respective positions. the civil service eligibility of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas.“Public office being a public trust.” “The civil service eligibility of a sanitarian being of public concern. Legaspi. and to confirm or deny. as requested by the petitioner Valentin L. Mandamus. 1] it is the legitimate concern of citizens to ensure that government positions requiring civil service eligibility are occupied only by persons who are eligibles.” 14 | P a g e . Sec. Art.