FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 148622. September 12, 2002.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by HON. HEHERSON

T. ALVAREZ, in his capacity as Secretary of the DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), CLARENCE L.
BAGUILAT, in his capacity as the Regional Executive Director of
DENR-Region XI and ENGR. BIENVENIDO L. LIPAYON, in his capacity
as the Regional Director of the DENR-ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT BUREAU (DENR-EMB), Region XI , petitioners, vs . THE
CITY OF DAVAO, represented by BENJAMIN C. DE GUZMAN, City
Mayor , respondent.

The Solicitor General for petitioner.

The City Legal Officer for respondent.

SYNOPSIS

Respondent led an application for a Certi cate of Non-Coverage (CNC) for its
proposed project, the Davao City Artica Sports Dome, with the Environmental Management
Bureau (EMB), Region XI. The same, however, was denied on the ground that the proposed
project was within an environmentally critical area; that the City of Davao must rst
undergo the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process to secure an Environmental
Compliance Certi cate (ECC). Respondent then led a petition for mandamus with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), and the latter ruled in favor of respondent.
As the project in issue is not classi ed as environmentally critical or within an
environmentally critical area, the DENR has no choice but to issue the CNC. It becomes its
ministerial duty, the performance of which can be compelled by writ of mandamus, such as
that issued herein by the trial court. The petition filed by the Republic was denied.

SYLLABUS

1. POLITICAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE;

LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT; FUNCTIONS. — Section 15 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code, de nes a local government unit as a body politic
and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in conformity with law. As such,
it performs dual functions, governmental and proprietary. Governmental functions are
those that concern the health, safety and the advancement of the public good or welfare as
affecting the public generally. Proprietary functions are those that seek to obtain special
corporate bene ts or earn pecuniary pro t and intended for private advantage and bene t.
When exercising governmental powers and performing governmental duties, an LGU is an
agency of the national government. When engaged in corporate activities, it acts as an
agent of the community in the administration of local affairs. ASDTEa

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE COVERAGE OF PD 1586
(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SYSTEM). — Found in Section 16 of the Local
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Government Code is the duty of the LGUs to promote the people's right to a balanced
ecology. Pursuant to this, an LGU, like the City of Davao, can not claim exemption from the
coverage of PD 1586. As a body politic endowed with governmental functions, an LGU has
the duty to ensure the quality of the environment, which is the very same objective of PD
1586. Further, it is a rule of statutory construction that every part of a statute must be
interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part must be considered with other
parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the enactment. Section 4 of PD 1586
clearly states that "no person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any
such declared environmentally critical project or area without rst securing an
Environmental Compliance Certi cate issued by the President or his duly authorized
representative." The Civil Code de nes a person as either natural or juridical. The state and
its political subdivisions, i.e., the local government units are juridical persons. Undoubtedly
therefore, local government units are not excluded from the coverage of PD 1586. Lastly,
very clear in Section 1 of PD 1586 that said law intends to implement the policy of the
state to achieve a balance between socio-economic development and environmental
protection, which are the twin goals of sustainable development. The rst paragraph of the
Whereas clause of the law stresses that this can only be possible if we adopt a
comprehensive and integrated environmental protection program where all the sectors of
the community are involved, i.e., the government and the private sectors. The local
government units, as part of the machinery of the government, cannot therefore be
deemed as outside the scope of the EIS system.
3. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT,
GENERALLY RESPECTED; EXCEPTIONS. — The trial court, after a consideration of the
evidence, found that the Artica Sports Dome is not within an environmentally critical area.
Neither is it an environmentally critical project. It is axiomatic that factual ndings of the
trial court, when fully supported by the evidence on record, are binding upon this Court and
will not be disturbed on appeal. This Court is not a trier of facts. There are exceptional
instances when this Court may disregard factual ndings of the trial court, namely: a) when
the conclusion is a nding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; b)
when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; c) where there is a
grave abuse of discretion; d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
e) when the ndings of fact are con icting; f) when the Court of Appeals, in making its
ndings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions
of both appellant and appellee; g) when the ndings of the Court of Appeals are contrary
to those of the trial court; h) when the ndings of fact are conclusions without citation of
speci c evidence on which they are based; i) when the nding of fact of the Court of
Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence but is contradicted by the
evidence on record; and j) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a
different conclusion. None of these exceptions, however, obtain in this case.
4. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; MANDAMUS; PROPER FOR THE PERFORMANCE
OF A MINISTERIAL DUTY. — The Artica Sports Dome in Langub is not classi ed as
environmentally critical, or within an environmentally critical area. Consequently, the DENR
has no choice but to issue the Certi cate of Non-Coverage. It becomes its ministerial duty,
the performance of which can be compelled by writ of mandamus, such as that issued by
the trial court in the case at bar.

DECISION
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 YNARES-SANTIAGO , J : p

Before us is a petition for review 1 on certiorari assailing the decision 2 dated May
28, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 33, which granted the writ of
mandamus and injunction in favor of respondent, the City of Davao, and against petitioner,
the Republic, represented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR). The trial court also directed petitioner to issue a Certi cate of Non-Coverage in
favor of respondent.
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
On August 11, 2000, respondent led an application for a Certi cate of Non-
Coverage (CNC) for its proposed project, the Davao City Artica Sports Dome, with the
Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), Region XI. Attached to the application were the
required documents for its issuance, namely, a) detailed location map of the project site;
b) brief project description; and c) a certi cation from the City Planning and Development
O ce that the project is not located in an environmentally critical area (ECA). The EMB
Region XI denied the application after nding that the proposed project was within an
environmentally critical area and ruled that, pursuant to Section 2, Presidential Decree No.
1586, otherwise known as the Environmental Impact Statement System, in relation to
Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1151, also known as the Philippine Environment
Policy, the City of Davao must undergo the environmental impact assessment (EIA)
process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certi cate (ECC), before it can proceed
with the construction of its project.
Believing that it was entitled to a Certi cate of Non-Coverage, respondent led a
petition for mandamus and injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Davao, docketed as
Civil Case No. 28, 133-2000. It alleged that its proposed project was neither an
environmentally critical project nor within an environmentally critical area; thus it was
outside the scope of the EIS system. Hence, it was the ministerial duty of the DENR,
through the EMB-Region XI, to issue a CNC in favor of respondent upon submission of the
required documents.
The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of respondent, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, nding the petition to be meritorious, judgment granting the
writ of mandamus and injunction is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner City
of Davao and against respondents Department of Environment and Natural
Resources and the other respondents by:

1) directing the respondents to issue in favor of the petitioner

City of Davao a Certi cate of Non-Coverage, pursuant to Presidential
Decree No. 1586 and related laws, in connection with the construction by
the City of Davao of the Artica Sports Dome;

2) making the preliminary injunction issued on December 12,

2000 permanent.
Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED. 3

The trial court ratiocinated that there is nothing in PD 1586, in relation to PD 1151
and Letter of Instruction No. 1179 (prescribing guidelines for compliance with the EIA
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 system), which requires local government units (LGUs) to comply with the EIS law. Only
agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including government owned or
controlled corporations, as well as private corporations, rms and entities are mandated
to go through the EIA process for their proposed projects which have signi cant effect on
the quality of the environment. A local government unit, not being an agency or
instrumentality of the National Government, is deemed excluded under the principle of
expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
The trial court also declared, based on the certi cations of the DENR-Community
Environment and Natural Resources O ce (CENRO)-West, and the data gathered from the
Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS), that the site for the Artica
Sports Dome was not within an environmentally critical area. Neither was the project an
environmentally critical one. It therefore becomes mandatory for the DENR, through the
EMB Region XI, to approve respondent's application for CNC after it has satis ed all the
requirements for its issuance. Accordingly, petitioner can be compelled by a writ of
mandamus to issue the CNC, if it refuses to do so.
Petitioner led a motion for reconsideration, however, the same was denied. Hence,
the instant petition for review.
With the supervening change of administration, respondent, in lieu of a comment,
led a manifestation expressing its agreement with petitioner that, indeed, it needs to
secure an ECC for its proposed project. It thus rendered the instant petition moot and
academic. However, for the guidance of the implementors of the EIS law and pursuant to
our symbolic function to educate the bench and bar, 4 we are inclined to address the issue
raised in this petition.
Section 15 of Republic Act 7160, 5 otherwise known as the Local Government Code,
de nes a local government unit as a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to
be exercised by it in conformity with law. As such, it performs dual functions, governmental
and proprietary. Governmental functions are those that concern the health, safety and the
advancement of the public good or welfare as affecting the public generally. 6 Proprietary
functions are those that seek to obtain special corporate bene ts or earn pecuniary pro t
and intended for private advantage and bene t. 7 When exercising governmental powers
and performing governmental duties, an LGU is an agency of the national government. 8
When engaged in corporate activities, it acts as an agent of the community in the
administration of local affairs. 9
Found in Section 16 of the Local Government Code is the duty of the LGUs to
promote the people's right to a balanced ecology. 1 0 Pursuant to this, an LGU, like the City
of Davao, can not claim exemption from the coverage of PD 1586. As a body politic
endowed with governmental functions, an LGU has the duty to ensure the quality of the
environment, which is the very same objective of PD 1586.
Further, it is a rule of statutory construction that every part of a statute must be
interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part must be considered with other
parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the enactment. 1 1 The trial court, in
declaring local government units as exempt from the coverage of the EIS law, failed to
relate Section 2 of PD 1586 1 2 to the following provisions of the same law:
WHEREAS, the pursuit of a comprehensive and integrated environmental
protection program necessitates the establishment and institutionalization of a
system whereby the exigencies of socio-economic undertakings can be reconciled
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 with the requirements of environmental quality; . . . .
Section 1. Policy. — It is hereby declared the policy of the State to
attain and maintain a rational and orderly balance between socio-economic
growth and environmental protection.
xxx xxx xxx

Section 4. Presidential Proclamation of Environmentally Critical Areas

and Projects. — The President of the Philippines may, on his own initiative or
upon recommendation of the National Environmental Protection Council, by
proclamation declare certain projects, undertakings or areas in the country as
environmentally critical. No person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or
operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without rst
securing an Environmental Compliance Certi cate issued by the President or his
duly authorized representative. For the proper management of said critical project
or area, the President may by his proclamation reorganize such government
o ces, agencies, institutions, corporations or instrumentalities including the
realignment of government personnel, and their speci c functions and
responsibilities.

Section 4 of PD 1586 clearly states that "no person, partnership or corporation shall
undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without
rst securing an Environmental Compliance Certi cate issued by the President or his duly
authorized representative." 1 3 The Civil Code de nes a person as either natural or juridical.
The state and its political subdivisions, i.e., the local government units 1 4 are juridical
persons. 1 5 Undoubtedly therefore, local government units are not excluded from the
coverage of PD 1586.
Lastly, very clear in Section 1 of PD 1586 that said law intends to implement the
policy of the state to achieve a balance between socio-economic development and
environmental protection, which are the twin goals of sustainable development. The above-
quoted rst paragraph of the Whereas clause stresses that this can only be possible if we
adopt a comprehensive and integrated environmental protection program where all the
sectors of the community are involved, i.e., the government and the private sectors. The
local government units, as part of the machinery of the government, cannot therefore be
deemed as outside the scope of the EIS system. 1 6
The foregoing arguments, however, presuppose that a project, for which an
Environmental Compliance Certi cate is necessary, is environmentally critical or within an
environmentally critical area. In the case at bar, respondent has su ciently shown that the
Artica Sports Dome will not have a signi cant negative environmental impact because it is
not an environmentally critical project and it is not located in an environmentally critical
area. In support of this contention, respondent submitted the following:
1. Certification from the City Planning and Development Office that the
project is not located in an environmentally critical area;

2. Certi cation from the Community Environment and Natural

Resources Office (CENRO-West) that the project area is within the 18-30% slope, is
outside the scope of the NIPAS (R.A. 7586), and not within a declared watershed
area; and
3. Certi cation from PHILVOCS that the project site is thirty-seven (37)
kilometers southeast of the southernmost extension of the Davao River Fault and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 forty- ve (45) kilometers west of the Eastern Mindanao Fault; and is outside the
required minimum buffer zone of five (5) meters from a fault zone.

The trial court, after a consideration of the evidence, found that the Artica Sports
Dome is not within an environmentally critical area. Neither is it an environmentally critical
project. It is axiomatic that factual ndings of the trial court, when fully supported by the
evidence on record, are binding upon this Court and will not be disturbed on appeal. 1 7 This
Court is not a trier of facts. 1 8
There are exceptional instances when this Court may disregard factual ndings of
the trial court, namely: a) when the conclusion is a nding grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises, or conjectures; b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
absurd, or impossible; c) where there is a grave abuse of discretion; d) when the judgment
is based on a misapprehension of facts; e) when the ndings of fact are con icting; f)
when the Court of Appeals, in making its ndings, went beyond the issues of the case and
the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; g) when the
ndings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; h) when the
ndings of fact are conclusions without citation of speci c evidence on which they are
based; i) when the nding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed
absence of evidence but is contradicted by the evidence on record; and j) when the Court
of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and
which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. 1 9 None of these
exceptions, however, obtain in this case.
The Environmental Impact Statement System, which ensures environmental
protection and regulates certain government activities affecting the environment, was
established by Presidential Decree No. 1586. Section 2 thereof states:
There is hereby established an Environmental Impact Statement System
founded and based on the environmental impact statement required under
Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1151, of all agencies and instrumentalities of
the national government, including government-owned or controlled corporations,
as well as private corporations, rms and entities, for every proposed project and
undertaking which significantly affect the quality of the environment.

Section 4 of PD 1151, on the other hand, provides:

Environmental Impact Statements. — Pursuant to the above enunciated
policies and goals, all agencies and instrumentalities of the national government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations, as well as private
corporations, rms and entities shall prepare, le and include in every action,
project or undertaking which signi cantly affects the quality of the environment a
detailed statement on —

(a) the environmental impact of the proposed action, project or

undertaking

(b) any adverse environmental effect which cannot be avoided

should the proposal be implemented
(c) alternative to the proposed action

(d) a determination that the short-term uses of the resources of

the environment are consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of
the long-term productivity of the same; and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 (e) whenever a proposal involves the use of depletable or
nonrenewable resources, a nding must be made that such use and
commitment are warranted.
Before an environmental impact statement is issued by a lead agency, all
agencies having jurisdiction over, or special expertise on, the subject matter
involved shall comment on the draft environmental impact statement made by
the lead agency within thirty (30) days from receipt of the same.

Under Article II, Section 1, of the Rules and Regulations Implementing PD 1586, the
declaration of certain projects or areas as environmentally critical, and which shall fall
within the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement System, shall be by Presidential
Proclamation, in accordance with Section 4 of PD 1586 quoted above.
Pursuant thereto, Proclamation No. 2146 was issued on December 14, 1981,
proclaiming the following areas and types of projects as environmentally critical and within
the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement System established under PD 1586:
A. Environmentally Critical Projects
I. Heavy Industries
a. Non-ferrous metal industries
b. Iron and steel mills

c. Petroleum and petro-chemical industries including oil and gas

d. Smelting plants
II. Resource Extractive Industries
a. Major mining and quarrying projects
b. Forestry projects

1. Logging
2. Major wood processing projects
3. Introduction of fauna (exotic-animals) in public/private
forests
4. Forest occupancy
5. Extraction of mangrove products
6. Grazing

c. Fishery Projects
1. Dikes for/and fishpond development projects
III. Infrastructure Projects
a. Major dams

b. Major power plants (fossil-fueled, nuclear fueled, hydroelectric or

geothermal)
c. Major reclamation projects
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 d. Major roads and bridges
B. Environmentally Critical Areas
1. All areas declared by law as national parks, watershed reserves, wildlife
preserves and sanctuaries;

2. Areas set aside as aesthetic potential tourist spots;

3. Areas which constitute the habitat for any endangered or threatened
species of indigenous Philippine Wildlife (flora and fauna);

4. Areas of unique historic, archaeological, or scientific interests;

5. Areas which are traditionally occupied by cultural communities or tribes;
6. Areas frequently visited and/or hard-hit by natural calamities (geologic
hazards, floods, typhoons, volcanic activity, etc.);
7. Areas with critical slopes;
8. Areas classified as prime agricultural lands;
9. Recharged areas of aquifers;

10. Water bodies characterized by one or any combination of the following

conditions;

a. tapped for domestic purposes

b. within the controlled and/or protected areas declared by appropriate
authorities
c. which support wildlife and fishery activities
11. Mangrove areas characterized by one or any combination of the following
conditions:
a. with primary pristine and dense young growth;
b. adjoining mouth of major river systems;
c. near or adjacent to traditional productive fry or fishing grounds;

d. which act as natural buffers against shore erosion, strong winds

and storm floods;

e. on which people are dependent for their livelihood.

12. Coral reefs, characterized by one or any combinations of the following
conditions:

a. with 50% and above live coralline cover;

b. spawning and nursery grounds for fish;
c. which act as natural breakwater of coastlines.

In this connection, Section 5 of PD 1586 expressly states:

Environmentally Non-Critical Projects. — All other projects, undertakings
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 and areas not declared by the President as environmentally critical shall be
considered as non-critical and shall not be required to submit an environmental
impact statement. The National Environmental Protection Council, thru the
Ministry of Human Settlements may however require non-critical projects and
undertakings to provide additional environmental safeguards as it may deem
necessary.

The Artica Sports Dome in Langub does not come close to any of the projects or
areas enumerated above. Neither is it analogous to any of them. It is clear, therefore, that
the said project is not classi ed as environmentally critical, or within an environmentally
critical area. Consequently, the DENR has no choice but to issue the Certi cate of Non-
Coverage. It becomes its ministerial duty, the performance of which can be compelled by
writ of mandamus, such as that issued by the trial court in the case at bar.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED. The decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 33, in Civil Case No. 28,133-2000, granting
the writ of mandamus and directing the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources to issue in favor of the City of Davao a Certi cate of Non-Coverage, pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 1586 and related laws, in connection with the construction of the
Artica Sports Dome, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug and Carpio, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 9-30.

2. Ibid., pp. 31-43.
3 Ibid., p. 42.
4. Gonzales v. Chavez, 205 SCRA 816, 830 (1992); Consolidated Bank and Trust
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 158, 176 (1991).
5. RA 7160, Section 15. Political and Corporate Nature of Local Government Units. — Every
local government unit created or recognized under this Code is a body politic and
corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in conformity with law. As such, it
shall exercise powers as a political subdivision of the National Government and as a
corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory.
6. Department of Public Services Labor Unions v. Court of Industrial Relations, 1 SCRA 316,
319 (1961).
7. Blaquera v. Alcala, 295 SCRA 366, 425 (1998).
8. Tiu San v. Republic, 96 Phil. 817, 820 (1955).
9. Lidasan v. Commission on Elections, 21 SCRA 496, 506 (1967).
10. General Welfare. — Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly
granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate,
or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to
the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local
government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a
balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-
reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance
economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents,
maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their
inhabitants.

11. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 295 SCRA 89, 96
(1998).

12. Supra.
13. Supra.
14. Administrative Code of 1987, Section 2(3). Local Government refers to the political
subdivisions established by or in accordance with the Constitution.
15. Civil Code of the Philippines, Book 1, Chapter 3, Art. 44. The following are juridical
persons:
(1) The State and its political subdivisions; . . .
16. Administrative Code of 1987, Section 2 (1) Government of the Republic of the
Philippines refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of
the government are exercised throughout the Philippines, including, save as the contrary
appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made
effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the provincial,
city, municipality or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government.
17. MOF Company, Inc. v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 149280, May 9, 2002.
18. Jacutin v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 140604, March 6, 2002.
19. Herbosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119087, January 25, 2002.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com