Laguna Lake Development Authority vs CA

GR No. 120865-71; Dec. 7 1995

FACTS:

The Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) was created through Republic Act No. 4850. It
was granted, inter alia, exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the use of all surface water for
any project or activity in or affecting the said region including navigation, construction, and
operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like.

Then came RA 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991. The municipalities in the Laguna Lake
region interpreted its provisions to mean that the newly passed law gave municipal governments
the exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within their municipal waters.

ISSUE:

Who should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its environs insofar as the issuance of
permits for fishing privileges is concerned, the LLDA or the towns and municipalities comprising
the region?

HELD:

LLDA has jurisdiction over such matters because the charter of the LLDA prevails over the Local
Government Code of 1991. The said charter constitutes a special law, while the latter is a general
law. It is basic in statutory construction that the enactment of a later legislation which is a general
law, cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. The special law is to be taken as an
exception to the general law in the absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion.

In addition, the charter of the LLDA embodies a valid exercise of police power for the purpose of
protecting and developing the Laguna Lake region, as opposed to the Local Government Code,
which grants powers to municipalities to issue fishing permits for revenue purposes.

Thus it has to be concluded that the charter of the LLDA should prevail over the Local Government
Code of 1991 on matters affecting Laguna de Bay
MINORS VS DENR/ OPOSA vs. FACTORAN
224 SCRA 792
G.R. No. 101083. July 30, 1993.

FACTS:

This case is unique in that it is a class suit brought by 44 children, through their parents, claiming
that they bring the case in the name of their generation as well as those generations yet unborn.
Aiming to stop deforestation, it was filed against the Secretary of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, seeking to have him cancel all the timber license agreements (TLAs) in
the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving
new TLAs. The children argue that the massive commercial logging in the country is causing vast
abuses on rainforest. They further invoked their right to a balanced and healthful ecology and to
protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae. The petitioners claimed that the DENR
Secretary's refusal to cancel the TLAs and to stop issuing them was "contrary to the highest law
of humankind-- the natural lawand violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and
perpetuation." The case was dismissed in the lower court, invoking the law on non-impairment
of contracts, so it was brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners have a locus standi

RULLING:

Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that the children had the legal standing to
file the case based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility. Their right to a healthy
environment carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding
generations. In this, the Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations.
Also, the Court said, the law on non-impairment of contracts must give way to the exercise of the
police power of the state in the interest of public welfare.
Tano vs Socrates 278 SCRA 154

FACTS

The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princessa enacted ordinance no. 15-92 banning the
shipment of live fish and lobster outside Puerto Princessa City for a period of 5 years. In the same
light, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan also enacted a resolution that prohibits the
catching, gathering, buying, selling and possessing and shipment of live marine coral dwelling
aquatic organisms for a period of 5 years within the Palawan waters. The petitioners Airline
Shippers Association of Palawan together with marine merchants were charged for violating the
above ordinance and resolution by the city and provincial governments. The petitioners now
allege that they have the preferential rights as marginal fishermen granted with privileges
provided in Section 149 of the Local Government Code, invoking the invalidity of the above-
stated enactments as violative of their preferential rights.

Issue

Whether or not the enacted resolutions and ordinances by the local government units violate the
preferential rights of the marginal fishermen ?

Held

No, the enacted resolution and ordinance of the LGU were not violative of their preferential
rights. The enactment of these laws was a valid exercise of the police power of the LGU to protect
public interests and the public right to a balanced and healthier ecology. The rights and privileges
invoked by the petitioners are not absolute. The general welfare clause of the local government
code mandates for the liberal interpretation in giving the LGUs more power to accelerate
economic development and to upgrade the life of the people in the community. The LGUs are
endowed with the power to enact fishery laws in its municipal waters which necessarily includes
the enactment of ordinances in order to effectively carry out the enforcement of fishery laws in
their local community
MAGBANUA vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

G.R. NOS. L-66870-72 JUNE 29, 1985

Facts:

The plaintiffs filed a petition against the respondents all surnamed Perez alleging that they are
shared tenants of the defendants, and that the latter divert the flow of water from their farm lots
which caused the drying up of their landholdings and asked to vacate their areas for they could
not plant palay due to lack of water. The trial court rendered a decision in favor to the plaintiffs
and ordered the defendants to pay moral and exemplary damages to the plaintiffs. The
defendants appealed to the IAC which the latter affirmed by deleting the award of moral and
exemplary damages to the plaintiffs. Upon the reinstatement of the IAC, the trial court did not
agree to the appellate court in its decision because the former believe that as shared tenants,
they are entitled to maintain as agricultural lessees in peaceful cultivation in their respective
landholdings.

Issue:

Whether or not the tenants of defendants were entitled to moral and exemplary damages.

Held:

Yes. Under the law, the landowners have an obligation to keep the tenant in the peaceful and
continuous cultivation of his landholding. In this case, it shows that the petitioners were denied
irrigation water for their farm lots in order to make them vacate their landholdings. The
defendants violated the plaintiffs rights and caused prejudiced to the latter by the diversion of
water. Under Article 2219 (10), the Civil Code permits the award of moral damages for acts
mentioned in Article 21 of the same Code which provides, Any person who wilfully causes loss or
injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage. The defendants acted in an oppressive manner which is
contrary to the morals of the petitioners and therefore, they are liable for the compensation to
the latter.
Republic of the Philippines v. The City of Davao

FACTS:

Respondent filed an application for a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) for its proposed project,
the Davao City Artica Sports Dome, with the Environmental Management Bureau however, was
denied on the ground that the proposed project was within an environmentally critical area; that
the City of Davao must first undergo the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process to
secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC). Respondent then filed a petition for
mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), and the latter ruled in favor of respondent.

ISSUE:

WON the LGUs are excluded from the coverage of PD 1586, one which requires an environmental
impact assessment (EIA) process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)

HELD:

No.Section 4 of PD 1586 provides that "no person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or
operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an
Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly authorized
representative." We note that LGUs are juridical persons.

HOWEVER, after consideration of the evidence finding Artica Sports Dome is not within an
environmentally critical area neither being a critical project. The said project is not classified as
environmentally critical, or within an environmentally critical area. Consequently, the DENR has
no choice but to issue the Certificate of Non-Coverage. It becomes its ministerial duty, the
performance of which can be compelled by writ of mandamus, such as that issued by the trial
court in the case at bar.
Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) vs. CA
[G.R. No. 93891 March 11, 1991]

Respondent, Solar Textile Finishing Corporation is involved in bleaching, rinsing and dyeing
textiles with untreated wastewater which were being discharged directly into a canal leading to the
adjacent Tullahan-Tinejeros River. On September 22, 1988, petitioner Pollution Adjudication Board
issued an ex parte Order based on 2 findings made on Solar Textile Finishing Corportions plant,
directing Solar immediately to cease and desist from utilizing its wastewater pollution source
installations as they were clearly in violation of Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 984 (Pollution
Control Law) and Section 103 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations and the 1982 Effluent
Regulations. Solar then filed a motion for reconsideration which was granted by the Pollution
Adjudication Board for a temporary operation. However, Solar went to the RTC for certiorari and
preliminary injunction against the Board but the same was dismissed. On appeal, the CA reversed the
Order of dismissal of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. Petitioner Board
claims that under P.D. No. 984, Section 7(a), it has legal authority to issue ex parte orders to suspend
the operations of an establishment when there is prima facie evidence that such establishment is
discharging effluents or wastewater, the pollution level of which exceeds the maximum permissible
standards set by the NPCC (now, the Board). Solar, on the other hand, contends that under the
Board's own rules and regulations, an ex parte order may issue only if the effluents discharged pose
an "immediate threat to life, public health, safety or welfare, or to animal and plant life" and argued
that there were no findings that Solar's wastewater discharged posed such a threat.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Pollution Adjudication Board has legal authority to issue the Order
and Writ of Execution against Solar Textile Finishing Corporation. YES.

HELD: The Court found that the Order and Writ of Execution were entirely within the lawful
authority of petitioner Board. Ex parte cease and desist orders are permitted by law and regulations
in situations like here. The relevant pollution control statute and implementing regulations were
enacted and promulgated in the exercise of that pervasive, sovereign power to protect the safety,
health, and general welfare and comfort of the public, as well as the protection of plant and animal
life, commonly designated as the police power. It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary
requirements of procedural due process yield to the necessities of protecting vital public interests
like those here involved, through the exercise of police power. Hence, the trial court did not err when
it dismissed Solar's petition for certiorari. It follows that the proper remedy was an appeal from the
trial court to the Court of Appeals, as Solar did in fact appeal. The Court gave due course on the
Petition for Review and the Decision of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution were set aside. The
Order of petitioner Board and the Writ of Execution, as well as the decision of the trial court were
reinstated, without prejudice to the right of Solar to contest the correctness of the basis of the
Board's Order and Writ of Execution at a public hearing before the Board.

Technology vs CA (193 scra 147)

 Technology Developers Inc. is engaged in manufacturing and exporting charcoal briquette.
On February 16, 1989, they received a letter from respondent Acting Mayor Pablo Cruz, ordering the
full cessation of the operation of the petitioner s plant in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The letter also
requested the company to show to the office of the mayor some documents, including the Building
permit, mayor s permit, and Region III-Pollution of Environmental and Natural Resources Anti-
Pollution Permit. Since the company failed to comply in bringing the required documents, respondent
Acting Mayor, without notice, caused the padlock of companys plant premises, effectively causing
stoppage of its operation. Technology Developers then instituted an action for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus with preliminary injunction against respondents, alleging that the closure order was
issued in grave abuse of discretion. The lower court ruled against the company. The CA affirmed the
lower courts ruling.
ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the mayor has authority to order the closure of the plant. YES.
2. Whether or not the closure order was done with grave abuse of discretion. NO.

RULING:

No mayor's permit had been secured. 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, now the Environmental Management Bureau of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, it must be recognized that the mayor of a town has as
much responsibility to protect its inhabitants from pollution, and by virture of his police power,
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.

The Acting Mayor, in the letter, called the attention of petitioner to the pollution emitted by the
fumes of its plant whose offensive odor "not only pollute the air in the locality but also affect the
health of the residents in the area," so that petitioner was ordered to stop its operation until
further orders and it was required to bring the following: a.Building permit; b. Mayor's permit;
and c. Region III-Department of Environment and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution permit.

This action of the Acting Mayor was in response to the complaint of the residents of Barangay
Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, directed to the Provincial Governor through channels.

The closure order of the Acting Mayor was issued only after an investigation was made. It found
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.

Petitioner failed to produce a building permit from the municipality of Sta. Maria, but instead
presented a building permit issued by an official of Makati.

G.R. No. 137174 July 10, 2000

Republic of The Philippines, Represented by The Pollution Adjudication Board (Denr)
Vs. Marcopper Mining Corporation

Respondent MMC was issued a temporary permit to operate a tailings sea disposal system.
In the meantime, the National Pollution Control Commission (NPCC) was abolished by EO No.
192dated June 10, 1987, and its powers and functions were integrated into the Environmental
Management Bureau and into the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB).On April 11, 1988, the
DENR Secretary, in his capacity as Chairman of the PAB, issued an Order directing MMC to "cease
and desist from discharging mine tailings into Calancan Bay."This was appealed by the MMC with
the Office of the President (OP).In line with the directive from the OP, the Calancan Bay
Rehabilitation Project (CBRP) was created, and MMC remitted the amount of P30,000.00 a day,
starting from May 13, 1988 to the Ecology Trust Fund (ETF) thereof. However, on June 30, 1991,
MMC stopped discharging its tailings in the Bay, hence, it likewise ceased from making further
deposits to the ETF. The PAB sought for the enforcement of the order issued by the OP, however,
the CA acted on Marcoppers petition and ordered the PAB to refrain and desist from enforcing
aforesaid Order. Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUE:

The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Republic Act No. 7942 repealed the provisions of
Republic Act No. 3931, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 984, with respect to the power
and function of petitioner Pollution Adjudication Board to issue, renew or deny permits for the
discharge of the mine tailings.

HELD:

The SC held that the CA erred in ruling that the PAB had no authority to issue the Order from the
ruling of the Court of Appeals that the PAB has been divested of authority to act on pollution-
related matters in mining operations is anchored on the provisions of RA 7942(Philippine Mining
Act of 1995).

GR NO. 131442 JULY 10, 2003

BANGUS FRY FISHERFOLK VS LANZANAS
 Regional Executive Director Antonio G. Principe ("RED Principe") of Region IV, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources ("DENR"), issued an Environmental Clearance Certificate ("ECC")
in favor of respondent National Power Corporation("NAPOCOR"). The ECC authorized NAPOCOR to
construct a temporary mooring facility in Minolo Cove, Sitio Minolo, Barangay San Isidro, Puerto
Galera, Oriental Mindoro. The Sangguniang Bayan of Puerto Galera has declared Minolo Cove, a
mangrove area and breeding ground for bangus fry, an eco-tourist zone. The mooring facility would
serve as the temporary docking site of NAPOCOR's power barge, which, due to turbulent waters at
its former mooring site in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, required relocation to a safer site like Minolo
Cove. The 14.4 megawatts power barge would provide the main source of power for the entire
province of Oriental Mindoro pending the construction of a land-based power plant in Calapan,
Oriental Mindoro. The ECC for the mooring facility was valid for two years counted from its date of
issuance or until 30June 1999. Petitioners, claiming to be fisherfolks from Minolo, San Isidro, Puerto
Galera, sought reconsideration of the ECC issuance. Petitioners filed a complaint with the Regional
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7, for the cancellation of the ECC and for the issuance of a writ of
injunction to stop the construction of the mooring facility. Petitioners opposed the motion on the
ground that there was no need to exhaust administrative remedies. They argued that the issuance of
the ECC was in patent violation of Presidential Decree No. 1605, 8 Sections 26 and 27 of Republic Act
No. 7160, and the provisions of DENR Department Administrative Order No. 96-37 ("DAO 96-37") on
the documentation of ECC applications. Petitioners also claimed that the implementation of the ECC
was in patent violation of its terms. TC dismissed complaint.

ISSUE: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners' complaint for lack of cause
action and lack of jurisdiction.

HELD: Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law. Such jurisdiction is
determined by the allegations in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all
or some of the reliefs sought .A perusal of the allegations in the complaint shows that petitioners'
principal cause of action is the alleged illegality of the issuance of the ECC. The violation of laws on
environmental protection and on local government participation in the implementation of
environmentally critical projects is an issue that involves the validity of NAPOCOR's ECC. If the ECC is
void, then as a necessary consequence, NAPOCOR or the provincial government of Oriental Mindoro
could not construct the mooring facility. The subsidiary issue of non-compliance with pertinent local
ordinances in the construction of the mooring facility becomes immaterial for purposes of granting
petitioners' main prayer, which is the annulment of the ECC. Thus, if the court has jurisdiction to
determine the validity of the issuance of the ECC, then it has jurisdiction to hear and decide
petitioners' complaint. Clearly, the Manila RTC has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the
issuance of the ECC, although it could not issue an injunctive writ against the DENR or NAPOCOR.