case digest on Environmental Law

EN BANC[G.R. No. 195482 : June 21, 2011]ELIZA M. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. V. PLACER DOME, INC."G.R.
No. 195482 (ELIZA M. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. PLACER DOME, INC.)
Nota Bien:
If you were to search this case using the above-cited G.R. No., you will see a mere resolution of the Court
without any defined statement of facts, issues or ruling. So what I did was to research on the factual
antecedents which culminated into this petition. Please, verify it if you cannot understand the following
discussions.
Antecedent Facts:
Placer Dome is the parent corporation of Marcopper Mining Company. It is engaged in the mining operations in
Marinduque from 1964 1997. In May 2006, Placer Dome merged with Barrick Gold Corporation, a foreign entity.
In March 1996, the disaster came about. A fracture in the drainage tunnel of a large pit containing leftover mine
tailings led to a discharge of toxic mine waste into the Makulapnit-Boac river system and caused flash floods in
areas along the river. Barangay Hinapulan, was buried in six feet of muddy floodwater, causing damage to
people and their families, as well as livestock, marine resources and maritime life.
Placer Dome entered into a contract with then President Fidel V. Ramos to rehabilitate the waters of Marinduque.
It did not reach fruition.
Start of Court Process:
In 2011, three residents of Marinduque, Eliza M. Hernandez, Mamerto M. Lanete and Godofredo L. Manoy,
represented by Father Joaquin Bernas, filed a petition for writ of kalikasan. In their petition, they argued that said
Placer Dome should be held liable for expelling some 2 million cubic meters of toxic industrial waste into the
Boac river when a drainage plug holding toxic mining waste from its operations ruptured.
The writ of Kalikasan was granted. In March 2011, the Court issued a resolution which referred the case to the
Court of Appeals for hearing, reception of evidence, and rendition of judgment. CA then issued a resolution
requiring the petitioners to issue a subpoena against Placer Dome.
Issue:
After receiving the resolution issued by CA, Barrick Gold, currently the owner of Placer Dome, filed a Clarificatory
Manifestation to clarify which court exercises jurisdiction over the case in order to shed light to the procedural
paths available to the parties.
Supreme Court Resolution:
Pursuant to Section 3, Rule VII of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, petitions for the Writ of
Kalikasan "shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the Court of Appeals." It was in
consonance with this provision that, on 8 March 2011, the Court issued the Resolution which, after granting the
Writ of Kalikasan sought by petitioners, referred the case to the CA for hearing, reception of evidence and
rendition of judgment. Considering said referral of the case to the CA, its re-docketing of the petition as CA-G.R.
SP No. 00001 and its conduct of proceedings relative thereto, it is imperative that the various motions and
incidents filed by the parties, together with the entire records of the case, be likewise referred to said Court in
observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and in the interest of the orderly and expeditious conduct of
the proceedings in the case.

G.R. No. 194239 : November 22, 2011

WEST TOWER CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS OF WEST TOWER
CONDO., AND IN REPRESENTATION OF BARANGAY BANGKAL, AND OTHERS, INCLUDING MINORS AND
GENERATIONS YET UNBORN V. FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, FIRST GEN
CORPORATION AND THEIR RESPECTIVE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS, JOHN DOES AND
RICHARD ROES

Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated May 31, 2011which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 194239 (West Tower Condominium Corporation, on behalf of the Residents of West Tower Condo.,
and in representation of Barangay Bangkal, and others, including minors and generations yet unborn v. First
Philippine Industrial Corporation, First Gen Corporation and their respective Board of Directors and Officers, John
Does and Richard Roes)
RESOLUTION
I
On November 15, 2010, petitioners filed their Petition for Issuance of a Writ ofKalikasan.[1]

On November 19, 2010, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona issued a Writ of Kalikasan[2]with a Temporary
Environmental Protection Order (TEPO), requiring the First Philippine Industrial Corporation (FPIC) and First Gen
Corporation (FGC) to make a Verified Return within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt thereof
pursuant to Section 8, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. The TEPO enjoined FPIC and
FGC to: (a) cease and desist from operating the pipeline until further orders; (b) check the structural
integrity of The whole span of the 117-kilometer pipeline while implementing sufficient measures to
prevent and avert any untoward incidents that may result from any leak of the pipeline; and (c) make a Report
thereon within 60 days from receipt thereof.
Consequent to the Court's issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan and the accompanying TEPO, FPIC ceased
operations on both (a) the White Oil Pipeline System (WOPL System), which extends 117 kilometers from
Batangas to Pandacan Terminal in Manila and transports diesel, gasoline, jet fuel and kerosene; and (b)
the Black Oil Pipeline System (BOPL System), which extends 105 kilometers and transports bunker fuel
from Batangas to a depot in Sucat, Paraaque City.
Through a letter dated May 9, 2011, Department of Energy (DOE) Undersecretary Atty. Jose M. Layug, Jr. seeks
clarification and confirmation on the coverage of the Writ of Kalikasan and the accompanying TEPO, i.e., whether
they cover both the WOPL and the BOPL.
It is apparent from the Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan that what petitioners sought to stop operating
is the WOPL, where the leak was found, affecting the vicinity of West Tower Condominium. Only the WOPL is
covered by the Writ ofKalikasan and the TEPO.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby clarifies and confirms that what is covered by the November 19, 2010 Writ
of Kalikasan and TEPO is only the WOPL System of respondent FPIC. Consequently, the FPIC can resume
operation of its BOPL System.
II
On March 29, 2011, the Court issued a Resolution setting the conduct of an ocular inspection on April 15, 2011
of the While Oil Pipeline System (WOPL System).
On April 15, 2011, the ocular inspection in the vicinity and basement of West Tower Condominium was
conducted in the presence of counsels of the parties, officers of respondent First Philippine Industrial Corporation
(FP1C), and residents of petitioner West Tower Condominium, among others.
As required by the Court, representatives of the University of the Philippines-National Institute of Geological
Sciences (UP-NIGS) and the UP Institute of Civil Engineering attended the ocular inspection. After the ocular
inspection, the Court asked the representatives of UP-N1GS and the UP Institute of Civil Engineering for their
opinions and recommendations through a report, among others, on (1) the issue of whether to grant FPIC's
urgent motion to temporarily lift the Temporary Environmental Protection Order for a period of not more than 48
hours in order to conduct pressure controlled leak tests to check the structural integrity of the WOPL which
entails running a scraper pig to eliminate air gaps within the pipeline prior to the conduct of said test, as
recommended by the international technical consultant of the Department of Energy; and (2) testing procedures
that may be used by the FPIC regarding the maintenance and checking of the structural integrity of the WOPL.
On May 10, 2011, the UP Institute of Civil Engineering sent a letter to the Court asking pertinent documents
from FPIC relative to testing protocols undertaken by FPIC and other proposals, and that it be given one week
within which to file its report after receipt of the documents.
WHEREFORE, finding the request of the UP Institute of Civil Engineering to be meritorious, FPIC is
hereby DIRECTED to submit documents regarding testing protocols it has undertaken to check for leaks and
the structural integrity of the WOPL, the results thereof and other related proposals it has committed to
undertake to the UP Institute of: Civil Engineering within five (5) days from notice. The UP Institute of Civil
Engineering is granted one (1) week from receipt of the requested documents from FPIC within which to file its
report.
The Court further Resolved to
(a) NOTE the Manifestation with Motion dated April 14, 2011 filed by counsel for petitioners, relative to the
resolution of March 29, 2011;
(b) NOTE the Letter (Report) dated April 21, 2011 of Dr. Carlo A. Arcilla, Director, National Institute of Geological
Sciences, College of Science University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, in compliance with the
resolution of March 29, 2011; and
(c) NOTE the Letter dated May 24, 2011 of Atty. Justin Christopher C. Mendoza of Poblador Bautista & Reyes Law
Offices, counsel for First Philippine Industrial Corporation, and GRANT his request for a copy of Dr. Carlo Arcilla's
April 21, 2011 Report filed in compliance with the resolution of March 29, 2011."

Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. Province of Aklan

G.R. No. 196870, June 26, 2012
FACTS:

Claiming that tourist arrivals to Boracay would reach 1 million in the future, respondent Province of
Aklan planned to expand the port facilities at Barangay Caticlan, Municipality of Malay. Thus, on May 7, 2009,
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Aklan Province issued a resolution, authorizing Governor Carlito Marquez to file
an application with respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) to reclaim the 2.64 hectares of foreshore
area in Caticlan. In the same year, the Province deliberated on the possible expansion from its original proposed
reclamation area of 2.64 hectares to forty (40) hectares in order to maximize the utilization of its resources.
After PRAs approval, on April 27, 2010, respondent Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesEnvironmental Management Bureau-Region VI (DENR-EMB RVI) issued to the Province Environmental Compliance
Certificate-R6-1003-096-7100 (the questioned ECC) for Phase 1 of the Reclamation Project to the extent of 2.64
hectares to be done along the Caticlan side beside the existing jetty port.
On May 17, 2010, the Province finally entered into a MOA with PRA which stated that the land use
development of the reclamation project shall be for commercial, recreational and institutional and other
applicable uses. It was at this point that the Province deemed it necessary to conduct a series of public
consultation meetings.
On the other hand, the Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan, the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of
Malay and petitioner Boracay Foundation, Inc. (BFI), an organization composed of some 160 businessmen and
residents in Boracay, expressed their strong opposition to the reclamation project on environmental, socioeconomic and legal grounds.
Despite the opposition, the Province merely noted their objections and issued a notice to the contractor
on December 1, 2010 to commence with the construction of the project. Thus, on June 1, 2011, BFI filed with the
Supreme Court the instant Petition for Environmental Protection Order/Issuance of the Writ of
Continuing Mandamus. Thereafter, the Court issued a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) and
ordered the respondents to file their respective comments to the petition.
The Petition was premised on the following grounds, among others:
a) the Province failed to obtain the favorable endorsement of the LGU concerned;
b) the Province failed to conduct the required consultation procedures as required by the Local
Government Code (LGC).
The Province responded by claiming that its compliance with the requirements of DENR-EMB RVI and
PRA that led to the approval of the reclamation project by the said government agencies, as well as the recent
enactments of the Barangay Council of Caticlan and the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Malay
favorably endorsing the said project, had categorically addressed all the issues raised by the BFI in its Petition.
It also considered the Petition to be premature for lack of cause of action due to the failure of BFI to fully exhaust
the available administrative remedies even before seeking judicial relief.

ISSUES:
WON the petition is premature because petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing
this case?
WON there was proper, timely, and sufficient public consultation for the project?

RULING:
On the issue of prematurity due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies
The Court held that the petition is not premature for failing to exhaust administrative remedies and to
observe the hierarchy of courts as claimed by the respondents.
The Court reiterated their ruling in Pagara v. Court of Appeals where they clarified that the rule
regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It is not applicable where, among
others, there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention such as in the instant case. The
rule may also be disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy or where the
protestant has no other recourse.
Meanwhile, the new Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, provides a relief for
petitioner under the writ of continuing mandamus, which is a special civil action that may be availed of to
compel the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law and which provides for the issuance of a TEPO
as an auxiliary remedy prior to the issuance of the writ itself.
The writ of continuing mandamus allows an aggrieved party to file a verified petition in the proper court
when any government agency or instrumentality or officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an
act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty xxx in connection with the enforcement or violation of an
environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein, xxx and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. Such proper court may be the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction
over the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme
Court.

Here, the Court found that BFI had no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law to determine the questions of unique national and local importance raised that pertain to laws and rules for
environmental protection.