Cordillera Global Network, et al. and Judy Lyn Adajar, et al. vs Ramon Paje, DENR Secretary, et al.

G.R. No 215988, April 10, 2019

FACTS:

Few years after the completion of SM City Baguio (Under ECC CAR0106-047-120) on November 2003,
the company wanted to expand its existing mall on Luneta Hill to increase parking and commercial
spaces that will require cutting of 182 trees.

In connection to the expansion project SM Investments submitted an amendment on their original ECC
on Dec 2010 which was later granted on Sep 2011 by DENR. DENR granted their clearance and permit to
the cut trees which was subject to several conditions, including conduct of public consultation with
stakeholders.

On February 2012, the Cordillera Global Network filed an environmental case on the ground that the
expansion project will severely damage the environment and health of the residents and a temporary
environment protection order to prevent SM from cutting tress but was later on resumed upon go signal
to cut trees from the Executive Director of DENR. Upon RTC Hearing, temporary protection order was
extended but later on lifted since SM argued that they strictly complied with the requirements.

On December 2013, RTC dismissed the case and held that though the petitioners possess the necessary
personality under the principle of transcendental importance, petitioners did not exhaust administrative
remedies. Additionality, they failed to prove that the removal of trees would have a detrimental effect
that will cause irreparable damage. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC and added that
petitioners failed to prove their allegation in the irregularity of the amended ECC.

The case was brought to the Supreme Court and petitioners maintained that SM violated the zoning and
city ordinance limit that they needed to obtain a separate ECC, that there was no public consultation,
the case was exempted from to exhaustion of administrative remedies.

SM also states that the case is moot because the permits have already expired and the trees have
already been removed.

ISSUE:

(1) Whether or not the petition must be dismissed for defective certification against forum
shopping
(2) Whether or the case raised to the Supreme Court is a question of fact
(3) Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for failure to observe the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies
(4) Whether or not the permits issued are valid and regularly issued or the amended ECC is enough
Held:

The petition was partially granted. The temporary restraining order was made permanent for
filling of new environmental compliance certificate.
It was further held that:
(1) Petitioners share a common interest. Hence, the signature of the petitioners to the
certification against forum shopping amounts to substantial compliance

(2) Supreme Court held that the question of fact in the case can be raised since it falls under the
exceptions on when the judgement is based on misapprehension of facts and when the
findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence
T
(3) The general rule is to first exhaust the available administrative remedies before a party can
bring the case to court for judicial review. The petitioners was never a party of the
application of ECC thus they never furnished a copy of the decision of the ECC and they
could have appeal

(4) SM are mistaken in their claim that there was no need to a new ECC it did not provide
relevant information as to whether the trees were planted or naturally grown which was
crucial to determine if the affected tress were natural or residual forest. The original ECC
contemplated 112 trees only but did not account removal of additional 182 trees.

Commerce is important for human survival, but so is ecology. This decision affirm our
human stewardship of the planet.