SHELL PHILIPPINES VS JALOS

FACTS 1990 – Shell PH Corp and the Rep. of the PH entered into SERVICE CONTRACT 38 for
the exploration and extraction of petroleum in Palawan. Two years later they
discovered natural gas in the Camago-Malampaya area and developed Malampaya
Natural Gas project: construction and installation of a pipeline from Shell’s
production platform to its gas processing plant in Batangas.
-
Jalos Jalos etal filed a complaint for damages against shell before RTC. These petitioners
were all subsistence fishermen from the coastal BRgy. Bansud Oriental Mindoro
whose livelihood was adversely affected by the construction and operation of Shell’s
natural gas pipeline.
- Their fish catch became few
- Net income fell
- The pipeline greatly affected biogenically had-structured communities such
as coral reefs that led stress to the marine life in the Mindoro sea
Shell Moved for dismissal of the complaint instead of filling an answer
- Trial court has no jurisdiction over the action; POLLUTION CASE under RA
3931 as amended by PD 984 or the Pollution Control Law; Pollution
Adjudication Board PAB has primary jurisdiction over pollution cases
- Doctrine of state immunity without the consent of the State; Under Service
Contract 38, they served as agent of the PH government in the development
of the Malampaya gas reserves
- Complaint failed to state a cause of action; they did not specify any
actionable wrong or particular act or omission on Shell’s part
RTC Dismissed the complaint. since it is a pollution related case, the complaint must be
brought first before PAB
CA Reversed the order and upheld the jurisdiction of RTC over the action
- Shell was not being sued for committing pollution but for constructing and
operating a natural gas pipeline that caused fish decline and considerable
reduction in fishermen’s income. The claim for damages was thus based on
quasi-delict over w/c the regular courts have jurisdiction
- Rejected Shell’s contention that the suit was against the State
- Held that the complaint sufficiently alleged an actionable wrong
- Complainants substantially complied with the technical requirements for
filing the action
ISSUES 1. WON the complaint is a pollution case that falls within the primary
jurisdiction of the PAB
2. WON complaint sufficiently alleged a COA against Shell
3. WON the suit is actually against the State and is barred under the doctrine
of state immunity
FIRST ISSUE Although the term pollution was not used by the complainants, the damaged caused
by the pipeline, the decline of fish and emission of poison constitutes pollution as
defined by law. (Sec. 2 PD 984) Pollution – any alteration of the physical, chemical
and biological properties of any water which is dangerous or detrimental to public
health, safety or welfare, or w/c will adversely affect their utilization.
The stress to marine life claimed by Jalos et.al is caused by some kind of pollution
emanating from Shell’s natural gas pipeline.
 Claim for damages must be resolved by proper tribunal. The power and expertise
needed to determine such issue lies with the PAB.
- EO 192 (1987) transferred to the PAB the powers and functions of the
National Pollution and Control Commission provided in RA 3931 as amended
by PD 984
- It empowered PAB to determine location, magnitude, extent, severity, casue
and effects of water pollution. Among its functions is to serve as arbitrator
for the determination of reparation or restitution of the damages and losses
resulting from pollution. It has the power to conduct hearings and impose
penalties. Its decisions may be reviewed by CA
- The term pollution connotes specialized knowledge, skills, technical and
scientific in determining the effects of pollution. These knowledge and skills
are not within the competence of ordinary courts.
SECOND ISSUE Although the complaint did not contain some scientific explanation regarding HOW
the construction and operation of the pipeline disturbed the waters and drove away
the fish, lack of particulars is not a ground for dismissal. The rules do not require
that the complaint must establish in detail the causal link between the construction
of the pipeline and the fish decline.
THIRD ISSUE Shell is not an agent of the state. but a service contractor for the E&D of one of the
country’s natural gas reserves. Their undertaking under Service Contract 38 is to
perform all petroleum operations and provide necessary technology and finance to
the PH government. Their obligation is about the contractual commitment to
develop and manage petroleum operations on behalf of the state.
Shell is a provider of services, technology and financing for the Malampaya Natural
Gas Project.
The court ruled that the complaint must be filed with the PAB as the government
agency tasked to adjudicate pollution related cases.

GRANTED THE PETITION.

MAYNILAD VS SECRETARY OF DENR

SUMMIT ONE VS POLLUTION ADJUDICATION

NATURE Petition for review on Certiorari ASSAILING orders issued by PAB w/c imposed a fine of
2.7 M on petitioner Summit One Condominium Corporation for its alleged violation of
RA 9275 – Philippine Clear Water Act
FACTS