SERVICE

What is service?
It is the act of providing a party with a copy or of the pleading or paper concered.
(Sec. 2, Rule 13, Rules of Court)

Upon whom service shall be made?

1. Upon the party himself if not represented by a counsel;
2. Upon the counsel if the party is represented by a counsel unless service upon the
party himself is order by the court;

Rules:
1. When a party is represented by a counsel, service must be made on said
counsel and notice to him is notice to the client;
2. Subject to compelling reasons involving substantial justice, service of a
petitioner upon a party when duly represented by a counsel of record, is a
patent nullity and is not binding upon the party wrongfully served unless for
instance the court or tribunal orders service upon the party or when the
technical defect in the manner of notice is waived; and
3. Service upon counsel representing several parties must be made upon said
counsel and is only entitled only to one copy of any paper served.

Modes of Service
1. By Personal Service
This is the preferred mode of service. It is done by delivering a copy of the
papers personally to the party or his counsel or by leaving the papers in his office
with his clerk or a person having charge thereof. It is completed upon actual
delivery.

2. By Mail (Registered or ordinary)

The preferred service by mail is registered mail. Service by ordinary mail
may be done only if no registry service is available in the locality of either the
sender or the addressee. (Sec. 7, Rule 13, Rules of Court)
Service by registered mail is complete upon the expiration of 10 days after
mailing, unless the court otherwise provides. (Sec. 10, Rule 13, Rules of Court)
Service by ordinary mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee,
or after 5 days from the date he received the first notice of the postmaster,
whichever is earlier. (sec. 10, Rule 13, Rules of Court)

3. By Substituted Service
This mode is availed only when there is failure to effect service personally
or by mail. It is effected by delivering the copy to the Clerk of Court, with proof
of both personal service and service by mail. (Sec. 8, Rule 13, Rules of Court)
It is complete at the time of delivery of the copy to the Clerk of Court.

Proof of Service
1. For personal Service:
a. Written admission of the party served;
b. Official return of the server; or
c. Affidavit of the party serving containing full information of the date,
place and maner of service.
2. For service by ordinary mail, it shall consist of the affidavit of the person
mailing the facts showing compliance with Sec. 7, Rule 13, Rules of Court
(Service by mail).
 3. For service by registered mail, it shall consist of affidavit of the person
mailing and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office.

G.R. No. 142314            June 28, 2001

MC ENGINEERING, INC., and HANIL DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
LTD., petitioners, 
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ARISTOTLE
BALDAMECA, respondents.
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:

Facts:
Petitioner Hanil Development Co., Ltd. (Hanil") is the overseas employer of all
contract workers deployed by petitioner MC Engineering, Inc. (hereinafter "MCEI")
under a Service Contract Agreement between petitioners. On 18 September 1992, private
respondent Aristotle Baldameca entered into an Employment Agreement with MCEI for
deployment as a plumber in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. The contract was for a term of twelve
(12) months.

For some reason, private respondent was not able to finish the full term of his
contract and he was repatriated back to Manila. On October 19, 1993, private respondent
filed a complaint with the POEA against petitioners for illegal dismissal. In his
complaint, private respondent prayed for the payment of his salaries for the unexpired
portion of his employment agreement and the reimbursement of his airfare.

The case was referred to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
Arbitration Division as by then it was this agency which had jurisdiction over private
respondent’s complaint. After the submission of position of papers, the labor arbiter
rendered a decision in favor of private respondent and held petitioner MCEI and Hanil
jointly and severally liable to private respondent in the amount of US$2,500.00 and 10%
of the cash award as and by way of attorney’s fees.

The decision of the labor arbiter was appealed to the NLRC by petitioners.
However, this appeal was dismissed as well as the motion for reconsideration filed by
petitioners was likewise denied.

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals questioning the
above Resolution and Order of the NLRC. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the
petition filed by petitioners. The resolution states, to wit:

"The instant Petition for Certiorari is fatally defective for two (2)
reasons: (1) there is no certification against forum shopping by co-
petitioner Hamil Development Co., Ltd.; and (2) there is no written
explanation why the service of the pleading was not done personally
(Section 3, Rule 46 and Section 11, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure). xxx”

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied. Hence, this petition
for review on certiorari.
Issue: Whether the outright dismissal based on one of the grounds that lack of
explanation of service by registered mail is valid.

Held:
Yes. Service and filing of pleadings and other papers must, whenever practicable,
be done personally. If they are made through other modes, the party concerned must
provide a written explanation as to why the service or filing was not done personally. To
underscore the mandatory nature of this rule requiring personal service whenever
practicable, Section 11 of Rule 13 gives the court the discretion to consider a pleading or
paper as not filed if the other modes of service or filing were resorted to and no written
explanation was made as to why personal service was not done in the first place. The
aforementioned provision provides:

"Sec. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. – Whenever practicable,

the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally.
Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes
must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not
done personally. A violation of this rule may be cause to consider the paper as not
filed."

In the instant case, it is not disputed that petitioners’ Petition for Certiorari filed in
the Court of Appeals did not contain an explanation why resort was made to other modes
of service of the petition to the parties concerned. In the exercise of its discretion granted
under Section 11 of Rule 13, the Court of Appeals considered the same as not having
been filed and dismissed the petition outright.

Petitioners do not give a reason why their petition was not accompanied by an
explanation why they resorted to other modes of service as required by the rules. Instead,
they argue that there has been substantial compliance with the requirements of the rule as
the petition contains the required affidavit of service that shows that the petition has
indeed been served on the parties concerned. Moreover, petitioners claim that their failure
to indicate an explanation was a purely technical error which does not call for an outright
dismissal of the petition.

The fact that an affidavit of service accompanied their petition does not amount to
a substantial compliance with the requirement of an explanation why other modes of
service other than personal service were resorted to. An affidavit of service is required
merely as proof that service has been made to the other parties in a case. Thus, it is a
requirement totally different from the requirement that an explanation be made if
personal service of pleadings was not resorted to.

WRIT OF KALIKASAN

Who may avail of the writ?

1. A natural or juridical person;
2. Entity authorized by law; or
 3. People’s organization, NGOs or any public interest group accredited by or
registered with any government agency on behalf of persons whose constitutional
right to a balance and healthful ecology is violated.

Locus standi or standing to file petition

Any Filipino Citizen may file an action before our courts for violation of our
environmental laws. Sec 5, Rule 2, Civil Procedure, Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases provides:

Section 5. Citizen suit. — Any Filipino citizen in representation of

others, including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to
enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws.

Magnitude of environmental damage

The environmental damage must be of such magnitude as to prejudice the
life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

Where to file?
1. Supreme Court; or
2. Any of the stations of Court of Appeals:
a. Manila City;
b. Cebu City; or
c. Cagayan De Oro City.

This writ is exempted from payment of docket fees.

Verified Return (Sec. 8, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)

Respondent is required to file a verified return within a non-extendible
period of 10 days after service of the writ of kalikasan.
Prohibited Pleadings and Motion
1. Motion to dismiss;
2. Motion for extension of time to file return;

3. Motion for postponement;

4. Motion for a bill of particulars;

5. Counterclaim or cross-claim;

6. Third-party complaint;

7. Reply;

8. Motion to declare respondent in default;

9. Intervention;

10. Memorandum

11. Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory ordersor interim relief orders; and

12. Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory order.
The filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan shall not preclude the
filing of separate civil, criminal, or administrative actions.

Contents of the Petition

a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent or if the name and
personal circumstances are unknown and uncertain, the respondent may be
described by an assumed appellation;
c) The environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be
violated, the act or omission complained of, and the environmental damage
of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants
in two or more cities or provinces.
d) All relevant and material evidence consisting of the affidavits of witnesses,
documentary evidence, scientific or other expert studies, and if possible,
object evidence;
e) The certification of petitioner under oath that: (1) petitioner has not
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any
court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and no such other action or claim is
pending therein; (2) if there is such other pending action or claim, a
complete statement of its present status; (3) if petitioner should learn that
the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, petitioner
shall report to the court that fact within five (5) days therefrom; and
f) The reliefs prayed for which may include a prayer for the issuance of a
TEPO.

G.R. No. 211010. March 7, 2017

Victoria Segovia, et. al. vs. The Climate Change Commission, et. al.
Caguia, J.:

Facts:
This is a petition for the issuance of writs of kalikasan and
continuing mandamus to compel the implementation of the following environmental laws
and executive issuances - Republic Act No. (RA) 9729 (Climate Change Act), and RA
8749 (Clean Air Act); Executive Order No. 774 (BO 774); AO 254, s. 2009 (AO 254);
and Administrative Order No. 171, s. 2007 (AO 171).

Executive Order 774 or what is referred to by the petitioners as the "Road Sharing
Principle." Its Section 9(a) reads:

Section 9. Task Group on Fossil Fuels. - (a) To reduce the consumption of

fossil fuels, the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) shall
lead a Task Group to reform the transportation sector. The new paradigm in the
movement of men and things must follow a simple principle: "Those who have
less in wheels must have more in road." For this purpose, the system shall favor
nonmotorized locomotion and collective transportation system (walking,
bicycling, and the man-powered mini-train).
 Later that same year, Congress passed the Climate Change Act. It created the
Climate Change Commission which absorbed the functions of the PTFCC and became
the lead policy-making body of the government which shall be tasked to coordinate,
monitor and evaluate the programs and action plans of the government relating to climate
change.

The petitioners wrote respondents regarding their pleas for implementation of the
Road Sharing Principle, Claiming to have not received a response, they filed this petition.
They claim that they are entitled to the issuance of the extraordinary writs due to the
alleged failure and refusal of respondents to perform an act mandated by environmental
laws, and violation of environmental laws resulting in environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health and property of all Filipinos.

These identified violations include: (a) The government's violation of

"atmospheric trust" as provided under Article XI, Section 1 of the Constitution, and
thoughtless extravagance in the midst of acute public want under Article 25 of the Civil
Code for failure to reduce personal and official consumption of fossil fuels by at least
fifty percent (50%); (b) DOTC and DPWH's failure to implement the Road Sharing
Principle under EO 774; (c) DA's failure to devote public open spaces along sidewalks,
roads and parking lots to sustainable urban farming as mandated by Section 12(b) of EO
774; (d) DILG's failure to coordinate with local government units (LGUs) to guide them
on the Road Sharing Principle under Section 9(g) of EO 774; (e) DENR's failure to
reduce air pollutant emissions;

Petitioners contend that respondents' failure to implement the foregoing laws and
executive issuances resulted in the continued degradation of air quality, particularly in
Metro Manila, in violation of the petitioners' constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology, and may even be tantamount to deprivation of life, and of life sources
or "land, water, and air" by the government without due process of law.

Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed

their Comment  seeking the outright dismissal of the petition for lack of standing and
failure to adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Moreover, respondents argue that
petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Also, respondents assert that
petitioners are not entitled to a writ of kalikasan because they failed to show that the
public respondents are guilty of an unlawful act or omission; state the environmental
law/s violated; show environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants of two or more cities; and prove that non-
implementation of Road Sharing Principle will cause environmental damage.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the petitioners have standing to file the petition;

2. Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for failing to adhere to the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts; and
3. Whether or not a writ of Kalikasan and/or Continuing Mandamus should issue.

Held:

As to the locus standi to file the petition, Citing Section 1, Rule 7 of the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC), respondents argue that the petitioners failed
to show that they have the requisite standing to file the petition, being representatives of a
rather amorphous sector of society and without a concrete interest or injury. However,
The RPEC did liberalize the requirements on standing, allowing the filing of citizen's suit
for the enforcement of rights and obligations under environmental laws. Thus, it is
sufficient that the person filing represents the inhabitants prejudiced by the environmental
damage subject of the writ.

As to the dismissal for failing to adhere to the doctrine of heirarchy of courts,

Under the RPEC, the writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy covering
environmental damage of such magnitude that will prejudice the life, health or property
of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. The magnitude of the ecological
problems contemplated under the RPEC satisfies at least one of the exceptions to the rule
on hierarchy of courts, as when direct resort is allowed where it is dictated by public
welfare. Given that the RPEC allows direct resort to this Court, it is ultimately within the
Court's discretion whether or not to accept petitions brought directly before it.

As to a writ of Kalikasan be issued, for a writ of kalikasan  to issue, the following

requisites must concur:

1. there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a

balanced and healthful ecology;

2. the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or

omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity;
and

3. the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an

environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

It is well-settled that a party claiming the privilege for the issuance of a writ
of kalikasan  has to show that a law, rule or regulation was violated or would be violated.

In this case, apart from repeated invocation of the constitutional right to health and to a
balanced and healthful ecology and bare allegations that their right was violated, the petitioners
failed to show that public respondents are guilty of any unlawful act or omission that constitutes
a violation of the petitioners' right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Notably, apart from bare
allegations, petitioners were not able to show that respondents failed to execute any of the laws
petitioners cited. Public respondents sufficiently showed that they did not unlawfully refuse to
implement or neglect the laws, executive and administrative orders as claimed by the
petitioners. Projects and programs that seek to improve air quality were undertaken by the
respondents.

What is affidavit of Identity?

Affidavit of Identity is a document which state and establish the real identity used
in different forms or documents with different names which belongs to the same person

GR No. 185374 11 March, 2015

Simplicia Cercado-Siga and Ligaya Cercado-Belison, et al
vs. Vicente Cercado, jr., et al.
Facts of the case

Petitioners Simplicia Cercado-Siga (Simplicia) and Ligaya Cercado-Belison

(Ligaya) claimed that they are the legitimate children of the late Vicente and Benita
Castillo (Benita), who were married last 9 October 1929 in Pililla, Rizal, in support of
such marriage, presented a copy of marriage contract issued by Iglesia Filipina
Independiente Church a duplicate copy which is a private documents.

The respondent are the legitimate heirs of Vicente and Leonora, who were
married on 27 June 1977 as evidenced by a marriage certificate registered with the Local
Civil Registrar of Binangonan, Rizal.

Based on the answer of the respondent, such marriage contract issued by the
Iglesia Filipina Independiente Church is a private document, the fact of the marriage
should be registered with the local civil registry, and such does not ipso facto make it a
public documents, certificate of baptism is also a private document which prove only the
administration of the sacrament not the veracity of the declaration, it does not however
prove filiation but only the fact that there is no record of ligaya on file (Birth Certificate)
issued by Local Civil Registry.

To prove the Ligaya’s kinship is a JOINT AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY TWO

PERSON THAT SHE WAS BORN VICENTE AND BENITA, attesting to the birth of
Ligaya.

This Affidavit was not given credence by the CA for being hearsay evidence.

Issue:

Whether or not the Joint Affidavit issued in lieu of birth certificate which attest
the birth of ligaya is valid

Ruling of the Court

No. The joint affidavit was not valid, the documents presented and executed by
two persons to effect that she was born to Vicente and Benita , the two persons were
never presented in court, thus there statement is tantamount to hearsay evidence.

What is an affidavit of Desistance?

Affidavit of Desistance is a document where state that she/he does not intend to
institute a case and he/she no longer interested in prosecuting or testifying in court.

2 kinds of Desistance under RPC

• Factual Desistance – Refers to the actual desistance of the actor, made after the
crime attempted stage, in this case the actor is still considered as criminally liable
• Legal Desistance – The Desistance , in law obviates criminal liability unless
preparatory or over act has already been committed themselves constitute felony
other than what is actor intended
The common misconception about the affidavit of desistance is that it can bar
someone from pursuing a criminal case. In theory, it serves as a waiver of one's right to
pursue civil indemnity. If the complaint is made after the institution of a criminal action,
the affidavit cannot justify the complaint's dismissal
People of the Philippines vs Demetrio Salazar, GR No. 181900 October 20, 2010

Facts of the Case

Accused Demetrio Salazar accused of 2 counts of statutory rape AAA a 12 year

old girl his stepdaughter, the first incidents was on 18 th day of May 1999 while the victim
AAA was sleeping where the the appellant place on top and have sexual intercourse, the
the second incident of rape was on 25th of June 1999.

During the pendency of the case, AAA purportedly executed and AFFIDAVIT OF
DESISTANCE, wherein AAA as stated in the affidavit that she was not rape by the
appellant and she no longer intend to pursue the cases filed against appellant, but during
the hearing it was disclosed that her mother forced to execute the affidavit upon threat of
harm. RTC issued a decision finding the appellant guilty of the 2 counts of Statutory
Rape. It was appealed to CA but denied, hence this petition.

Issue:

Whether the VICTIM’S AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE can be given weight?

The ruling of the court

No. the Affidavit of Desistance cannot be given weight. According to SC, it bereft
of probative value based on the following findings:

1. The affidavit was not duly sworn to;

2. The victim testified her mother threatened to kill her should she refuse to
execute the affidavit; and
3. The affidavit was executed after the case had already been instituted, the
court already acquired jurisdiction over the case.
The Affidavit was never identified by the victim, submitted in court only after the
institution of the rape cases, even it was construed as pardon, not a ground for the
dismissal of the criminal cases since the action was already been instituted. To justify the
dismissal, the pardon should have been made prior to the institution of criminal actions.
FORMS:

 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
 WRIT OF KALIKASAN
 AFFIDAVIT OF CHANGE OF MOTOR REGISTRATION
 AFFIDAVIT OF CHANGE OF COLOR OF MOTOR VEHICLE
 AFFIDAVIT OF ONE AND THE SAME PERSON
 AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE
Republic of the Philippines )
City of Pasay ) S.S.
x---------------------------------------x

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, JOHN Y. DOE, of legal age, Filipino, single, and a resident of 1000 F.B.
Harrison St. Pasay City, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby
depose and state that:

1. I am the Paralegal of Dela Cruz & Dela Cruz Law Offices with office address at
Unit A, Malawak Building, 5612 Leveriza St., Pasay City, Philippines;

2. In my aforementioned capacity, I personally served a copy of the Demand to Pay

Sum of Money upon:

Mr. JUAN TIU

#56 Brgy. Kuripot,
San Isidro, Pasay City

3. That I was able to leave a copy of the said demand letter but Mr. Tiu refused to
sign the receiving copy thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 6 May 2018 in

the City of Pasay.

JOHN Y. DOE
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 6 May 2018, by the Affiant who is
personally known to me and whom I have identified through competent evidence of
identity, who exhibited his UMID with number CRN-0101-2020202-3.

ATTY. LITO A. KHO

Notary Public until December 31,
2018
Commission No. 2017-01
PTR No. 101010 – Pasay City –
1/8/18
IBP Lifetime No. 012345
Roll of Attorney No. 70001
Doc. No. 3
Page No. 54
Book No. V
Series of 2018

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
MANILA CITY

MARIA S. DELA CRUZ,

MARIO A. PAZ, JUAN C.
LAPUZ, GRACE D. LUZ,
EVELYN P. CORPUS, and
RAYMOND C. PADILLA,
collectively referred as the
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF
BARANGAY 1, PASAY CITY,
Petitioners,

vs. G.R. No. ___________

MJM Transportation
Company,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------x

PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF KALIKASAN

The Petitioners, through the undersigned and unto this

Honorable Court, respectfully state that:

1. Petitioners MARIA S. DELA CRUZ, MARIO A. PAZ,

JUAN C. LAPUZ, GRACE D. LUZ, EVELYN P.
CORPUS, and RAYMOND C. PADILLA are all
Filipinos, of legal age and residents of Pasay City. They
are collectively referred to as the CONCERNED
CITIZENS OF BRGY. 1, PASAY CITY, an informal
aggrupation of residents of Barangay 1, Pasay City
suing in representation of others, including minors and
 generations yet unborn, to uphold and protect the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
They may be served with court processes at the office
address of the undersigned counsel;

2. Private respondent corporation MJM Transportation

COMPANY is a domestic corporation organized and
existing according to the Philippine Laws with a
principal address at 900 MJM Building, Barangay 1,
Pasay City, Philippines, where it may be served with
summons and other processes of this Honorable Court;

3. This is a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan

concerning the violation of the Constitutional rights of
the residents of the City of Pasay, to a balanced and
healthful ecology;

STATEMENT OF FACTS

4. The petitioners have long suffered, or at most two (2)

years, from the black and dirty air exhaust by the
motor vehicles of respondent which almost all of the
latter’s motor vehicles are contributing to the air
pollution through smoke-belching;

5. On 3 August 2016, the herein petitioners wrote a letter

to respondent company regarding their concerns for
smoke-belching of latter’s motor vehicles. A copy of the
complaint letter to respondent is hereby attached as
“ANNEX A”;

6. Respondent’s motor vehicles are plying the route of

Baclaran to Manila Central University which involves the
cities of Parañaque, Pasay, Manila and Quezon; A copy
of their franchise is hereby attached as “ANNEX B”;

7. The complaint letter from the petitioners were received

by the respondent’s secretary. However, there was no
reply. A copy of the received letter is hereby attached
as “ANNEX C”;

8. On 25 August 2016, the petitioners asked for a record

from the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority
(MMDA) of lists of violations of respondent’s motor
vehicles. However, there exist no record. A copy of the
certificate of non-existence of record is hereby attached
as “ANNEX D”;
9. Petitioners further wrote a letter to the
abovementioned agency if there are MMDA enforcers
assigned to implement the laws on the said areas of
route. The response was in the affirmative;

10. Despite the existence of the MMDA enforcers, the

motor vehicles of respondent company still continue to
pursue its business which is detrimental to the health
and environment of the residents of the affected cities
as well as the citizens who are using the similar motor
vehicles to for their everyday transportation to work or
schools; and

11. Thus, the continuous violation of the respondent for

smoke-belching without any proper compliance with the
Clean Air Act would further violate the Constitutional
right of the petitioners to a balanced and healthful
ecology to a clean and unpolluted air;

ARGUMENT

12. Respondent’s act is contrary to Sec. 21 of the Clean Air

Act by smoke-belching which would give allowance to
the petition prayed for.

DISCUSSIONS

13. The act of respondent’s non-compliance with the Clean

Air Act is a clear violation of the said law;

14. Respondent’s act is in violation of Sec. 21, of Republic

Act No. 8749 (also known as the “Clean Air Act”) which
states, to wit:

“Section 21. Pollution from Motor

Vehicles. - a) The DOTC shall implement the
emission standards for motor vehicles set
pursuant to and as provided in this Act. To
further improve the emission standards, the
Department shall review, revise and publish the
standards every two (2) years, or as the need
arises. It shall consider the maximum limits for
all major pollutants to ensure substantial
improvement in air quality for the health, safety
and welfare of the general public.
 The following emission standards for type
approval of motor vehicles shall be effective by
the year 2003:

a) For light duty vehicles, the exhaust

emission limits for gaseous pollutants shall be:

Emission Limits for Light Duty Vehicles

Type Approval
(Directive 91/441/EEC)

CO HC + PMa 
(g/km) NOx  (g/km)
(g/km)
2.72 0.970.14

for compression-ignition engines only

b) For light commercial vehicles, the exhaust

emission limit of gaseous pollutants as a
function of the given reference mass shall be:

Emission Limits for Light Commercial Vehicles

Type Approval
(Directive 93/59/EEC)

Referenc CO HC + PMa (g/km
e Weight (g/km NOx(g/km )
(RW) ) )
(kg)
Categor 1250< 2.72 0.97 0.14
y1 RW
Categor 1250< 5.17 1.4 0.19
y2 RW<170
0
Categor RW>170 6.9 1.7 0.25
y3 0

for compression-ignition engines only

 c) For heavy duty vehicles, the exhaust emission
limits of gaseous pollutants shall be:

Emission Limits for Heavy Duty Vehicles

15. Type Approval
16. (Directive 91/542/EEC)

CO HC NOx PM

(g/k/Wh) (g/k/Wh (g/k/Wh (g/k/Wh)

) )
4.5 1.1 8.0 0.36a

In the case of engines of 85 kW or less, the

limit value for particular emissions in increased
by multiplying the quoted limit by a coefficient of
1.7 Fuel evaporative emission for spark-ignition
engines shall not exceed 2.0 grams hydrocarbons
per test. Likewise, it shall not allow any emission
of gases from crankcase ventilation system into
the atmosphere.”

15. The continuous violation of respondent of the law would

render the law and the enforcers ineffective;

16. Also, it would continuously violate the constitutional

right of the petitioners to a balance and healthful
ecology;

17. The non-observance of the aforementioned law would

tantamount to non-compliance of the same
transportation company;

18. Lastly, the continued tolerance of this violation would

cause great damage not only to our health but also to
our environment.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioners prayed

that the Honorable Supreme Court:
 1. Issue a closure of the business of respondent company
if non-compliance and same violation be committed;
2. Issue a revocation of its franchise as a consequence of
the violation of Clean Air Act;
3. Direct the appropriate government agencies to inspect
the said premises; and

Petitioners pray for such other reliefs which relate to the

right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology or to
the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of
the environment.

Pasay City, 13 May 2018.

By:

JOHN SIA
Counsel for Petitioners
Roll No. 77777
PTR No. 1000001. 1/4/2018
IBP Lifetime No. 022498
MCLE Compliance No. V – 031289. 08/18/2017

EXPLANATION

Due to distance and logistical constraints, service of

this petition was done by registered mail.

JOHN SIA

Copy furnished:

MJM TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

900 MJM Building, Barangay 1
Pasay City, Philippines, 1300
 CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
VERIFICATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF PASAY ) S.S.
x---------------------------------------------x

AFFIDAVIT OF CHANGE OF MOTOR REGISTRATION

I, Johnny Deep, of legal age, Filipino, married, and presently residing at

Blk 55, Unit 66, DCMI Homes, Pasay City, after having been duly sworn to
in accordance with law, depose and state:

1. I am the owner of a certain registered motor vehicle, which I inherited

from my deceased father through intestate succession, with the
particular description as follows, to wit:

MAKE: Honda
BODY: Sedan
SERIES: Civic
MODEL: 1998
PLATE NO.: UTS 101
Serial/Chassis No.: US15- 2B3509
MV FILE No.: 2477- 33438

2. However, its motor part has been recently junked, and in its stead was
replaced by Motor No. C240300014.

3. I therefore have executed this Affidavit to attest the truth I mentioned

herein and for whatever legal purposes it may serve.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 30th day

of January 2018 in Pasay City, Philippines.

Johnny Deep
Affiant

SUBCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 30th day of January 2018

in Pasay City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me her competent evidence
of identity with Philippine Passport No. 123456 valid until January 13,
2019.
 NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2018.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF PASAY ) S.S.
x------------------------------------------x

AFFIDAVIT OF CHANGE OF COLOR OF MOTOR VEHICLE

I, Johnny Deep, of legal age, Filipino, married, and presently residing

at Blk 55, Unit 66, DCMI Homes, Pasay City, after having been duly sworn
to in accordance with law, depose and state:

1. I am the owner of a certain registered motor vehicle, which I inherited

from my deceased father through intestate succession, with the
particular description as follows, to wit:

MAKE: Honda
BODY: Sedan
SERIES: Civic
MODEL: 1998
PLATE NO.: UTS 101
US15-
Serial/Chassis No.: 2B3509
2477-
MV FILE No.: 33438

2. I recently changed the color of the said motor vehicle from color blue
to pink;

3. Said change of is not intended for any illegal or unlawful purpose;

3. I therefore have executed this Affidavit to cause the necessary changes

in the registration of the above- mentioned vehicle in the Land
Transportation Office, to attest the truth I mentioned herein and for
whatever legal purposes it may serve.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 30th day of

January 2018 in Pasay City, Philippines.

Johnny Deep
Affiant
 SUBCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 30th day of January 2018
in Pasay City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me her competent evidence
of identity with Philippine Passport No. 123456 valid until January 13,
2019.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. _____;
Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2018.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES}
CITY OF BAGUIO } S.S.
x ------------------------------------------ x

AFFIDAVIT OF ONE AND THE SAME PERSON

I, DANILO MIRADOR MOSELINA, of legal age, Filipino citizen,

single, and a resident of 1 Ledesma St., Aurora Hill, Baguio City,
Philippines, after having been sworn in accordance with law aver that;

1. I am the child of AVELINO MOSELINA and EMILIA MIRADOR;

2. I have used the name DANILO MIRADOR MOSELINA, in all of

my records and dealings such as government IDs, school records
baptismal certificate and others of similar nature.

3. My baptismal certificate states my first name as DANILO. It is the

ONLY document which is in my possession to which my identity is
based. As such, I have used the name “DANILO” instead of
“FRANKLIN” which is the name appearing in my Birth Certificate.

4. I am under the impression and belief that “DANILO” is my real and

ONLY name;

5. It was only during the time that I need to secure requirements for my
passport that I discovered that a name “FRANKLIN” appeared in the
authenticated copy of my Certificate of Live Birth instead of the name
“DANILO” which I am using since childhood.

6. I am executing this affidavit to attest that “DANILO MIRADOR

MOSELINA” and “FRANKLIN MIRADOR MOSELINA” as
appearing in the copy of my certificate of Live Birth are ONE AND
THE SAME PERSON.
 7. I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truthfulness and honesty of
the foregoing facts and for all intents and purposes it may serve.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand on this 26 th day

of April, 2017 in the City of Baguio.

DANILO MIRADOR MOSELINA

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the City of

Baguio, Philippines, this 22nd day of November 2013 by ABIGAIL A.
ALCANTARA who exhibited to me her Passport No. CC957742, valid
until February 14, 2017 as competent proof of her identity, and who is the
same person who personally signed before me the foregoing affidavit and
acknowledged that she executed the same.

JUAN DELA CRUZ JR.

Notary Public
Until December 31, 2014
100A Session Road, Baguio City
(074) 422-1234
PTR No. 1928374/Baguio City/01-04-
19
Roll of Atty. No. 67548/05-18-10
IBP OR No. 739281/Baguio-
Benguet/01-04-19
MCLE Compliance No. IV-90210/04-
22-18
Commission Serial No. 01-NC-11 (R)
TIN: 302-760-343

Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 1;
Book No. I;
Series of 2017
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES}
CITY OF BAGUIO } S.S.
x ------------------------------------------ x

AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE

I, EDWARD E. ENGRACIA, single, of legal age, Filipino citizen,

with residence and postal address at 65 Cabinet Hill, Baguio City, after
having been duly sworn in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the Private Complainant in Criminal Case No. 35646-

R for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 otherwise known as the Bouncing
Checks Law now pending before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Baguio City,
Branch 3;

2. That the accused ENRIQUIETTA E. ELEFANTE has settled

her obligations with me to my full satisfaction;

3. That due to the aforementioned reason, I freely and voluntarily

pray for the FINAL DISMISSAL of the case against
ENRIQUIETTA E.
ELEFANTE;

4. That I am no longer interested to pursue the case against said

ENRIQUIETTA E. ELEFANTE;

5. That I am now requesting the Office of the City Prosecutor of

Baguio City and the Honorable Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Branch 3 of Baguio City to have the case withdrawn against
ENRIQUIETTA
E. ELEFANTE;

6. That I am executing this Affidavit of Desistance to attest to the

truth of all the foregoing facts, as well as to withdraw my complaint
 against ENRIQUIETTA E. ELEFANTE, and ultimately have the case
against her be dismissed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 22nd
day of November 2018, in the City of Baguio, Philippines.

EDWARD E. ENGRACIA
Affiant / Private Complainant

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that I have personally examined the affiant and I am

convinced that he voluntarily executed his statement and understood the
contents thereof.

EMILY E. ELISEO
Public Prosecutor

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the City of Baguio,

Philippines, this 22nd day of November 2013, by EDWARD E.
ENGRACIA, personally known to me, who is the same person who
personally signed before me the foregoing affidavit and acknowledged that
he executed the same.

JUAN DELA CRUZ JR.

Notary Public
Until December 31, 2019
100A Session Road, Baguio City
(074) 422-1234
PTR No. 1928374/Baguio City/01-04-
18
Roll of Atty. No. 67548/05-18-10
IBP OR No. 739281/Baguio-
Benguet/01-04-13
MCLE Compliance No. IV-90210/04-
22-13
Commission Serial No. 01-NC-11 (R)
TIN: 302-760-343
Doc. No. 5;
Page No. 1;
Book No. I;
Series of 2018