Shell vs Jalos

Ponente: Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad

Facts:
 Shell Philippine Exploration and the Philippine Government entered into
service contract 38 giving shell rights to explore and extract petroleum in
north-western Palawan area giving way to the creation of the shell pipeline
from Camago-Malampaya Area crossing the Mindoro sea to their processing
plant in Batangas. Jalos et. al. alleged that the shell pipeline caused the
decline of fish in the costal waters giving them reason to file a petition for
damages against shell. The RTC ruled in favor of shell, stating that it is the
PAB that has jurisdiction to hear all cases concerning pollution.
Issue:

 Whether or not the complaint is a pollution case falling under the jurisdiction
of PAB
Held:
 The court stated that although the complaint did not contain the word
pollution in describing the alleged decline of fish in the costal waters, it is
unmistakable that based on how the described the reason for the decline is
inline with the description of pollution in P.D. 984. Moreover, E.O. 192
transferred the powers and functions of the National Pollution and Control
Commission to PAB, giving them jurisdiction over all cases concerning
pollution. This only meant that Jalos et. al. had administrative recourse
before filling with regular courts, resort must be made first with PAB, which
has the expertise to determine pollution related matters. Furthermore, the
court ruled that the failure of Jalos et. al. to allege in their complaint that
they had first taken resort to PAB before going to court mean that they failed
to state a cause of action that the RTC could act on. This warranted the
dismissal of the case.