WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS

CASE NUMBER/TITLE/G.R NO/PONENTE CASE RULING

(1) METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS (THE CLEANING OR REHABILITATION OF MANILA BAY CAN BE COMPELLED BY MANDAMUS)
AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES The CLEANUP AND/OR RESTORATION OF THE MANILA BAY is only an aspect and the initial stage of the long-term solution. The
vs CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, PRESERVATION OF THE WATER QUALITY OF THE BAY after the rehabilitation process is as important as the cleaning phase. It is
represented and joined by DIVINA V. ILAS, imperative then that the wastes and contaminants found in the rivers, inland bays, and other bodies of water be stopped from
SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUEL reaching the Manila Bay. Otherwise, any cleanup effort would just be a futile, cosmetic exercise, for, in no time at all, the Manila
SANTOS, JR., DINAH DELA PEA, PAUL Bay water quality would again deteriorate below the ideal minimum standards set by PD 1152, RA 9275, and other relevant laws.
DENNIS QUINTERO, MA. VICTORIA LLENOS,
DONNA CALOZA, FATIMA QUITAIN, VENICE It thus behooves the Court to put the heads of the PETITIONER-DEPARTMENT-AGENCIES AND THE BUREAUS AND OFFICES under
SEGARRA, FRITZIE TANGKIA, SARAH JOELLE them on continuing notice about, and to enjoin them to perform, their mandates and duties towards cleaning up the Manila
LINTAG, HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS BOBIS, Bay and preserving the quality of its water to the ideal level. Under what other judicial discipline describes as CONTINUING
FELIMON SANTIAGUEL, JAIME AGUSTIN R. MANDAMUS, the Court may, under extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its
OPOSA, G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference. In India, the DOCTRINE OF CONTINUING
2008 MANDAMUS was used to enforce directives of the court to clean up the length of the Ganges River from industrial and municipal
pollution.
PONENTE: VELASCO, JR., J.:
A perusal of other petitioners respective charters or like enabling statutes and pertinent laws would yield this conclusion: THESE
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES are enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation, to perform certain functions relating directly or
indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of the Manila Bay. They are precluded from choosing not
to perform these duties. In the light of the ongoing environmental degradation, the Court wishes to emphasize the EXTREME
NECESSITY FOR ALL CONCERNED EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES to immediately act and discharge their respective
official duties and obligations. Indeed, time is of the essence; hence, there is a need to set timetables for the performance and
completion of the tasks, some of them as defined for them by law and the nature of their respective offices and mandates.

(2) MARICRIS D. DOLOT, CHAIRMAN OF THE WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS

BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN-
SORSOGON, PETITIONER vs. HON. RAMON The CONCEPT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS was first introduced in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned
PAJE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY Residents of Manila Bay. Now cast in stone under RULE 8 OF THE RULES, THE WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS enjoys a
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT distinct procedure than that of ordinary civil actions for the enforcement/violation of environmental laws , which are covered by
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, REYNULFO A. Part II (Civil Procedure). Similar to the procedure under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for special civil actions for certiorari,
JUAN, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MINES AND prohibition and mandamus, SECTION 4, RULE 8 OF THE RULES requires that the PETITION FILED should be sufficient in form and
GEOSCIENCES BUREAU, DENR, HON. RAUL substance before a court may take further action; OTHERWISE, the court may dismiss the petition outright. Courts must be
R. LEE, GOVERNOR, PROVINCE OF cautioned, however, that the determination to give due course to the petition or dismiss it outright is an exercise of discretion
SORSOGON, ANTONIO C. OCAMPO, JR., that must be applied in a reasonable manner in consonance with the spirit of the law and always with the view in mind of seeing
VICTORIA A. AJERO, ALFREDO M. AGUILAR, to it that justice is served.
AND JUAN M. AGUILAR, ANTONES The WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS is a special civil action that may be availed of "to compel the performance of an act
ENTERPRISES, GLOBAL SUMMIT MINES specifically enjoined by law." The PETITION should mainly involve an environmental and other related law, rule or regulation or a
DEV'T CORP., AND TR ORE, G.R. No. 199199, right therein. The RTC’S MISTAKEN NOTION ON THE NEED FOR A FINAL JUDGMENT, DECREE OR ORDER is apparently based on
August 27, 2013 the definition of the writ of continuing mandamus under Section 4, Rule 1 of the Rules, to wit: (c) CONTINUING MANDAMUS is a
writ issued by a court in an environmental case directing any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to
PONENTE: REYES, J.: perform an act or series of acts decreed by final judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied . (Emphasis
ours)

Under the Rules, after the court has rendered a judgment in conformity with Rule 8, Section 7 and such judgment has become
final, the ISSUING COURT still retains jurisdiction over the case to ensure that the government agency concerned is performing
its tasks as mandated by law and to monitor the effective performance of said tasks. It is ONLY UPON FULL SATISFACTION OF THE
FINAL JUDGMENT, ORDER OR DECISION that a final return of the writ shall be made to the court and if the court finds that the
judgment has been fully implemented, the satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in the court docket. A WRIT OF
CONTINUING MANDAMUS is, in essence, a command of continuing compliance with a final judgment as it "permits the court to
retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs mandated under the court’s
decision."

The Court, likewise, cannot sustain the argument that the petitioners should have first filed a case with the Panel of Arbitrators
(Panel), which has jurisdiction over mining disputes under R.A. No. 7942. Indeed, as pointed out by the respondents, the Panel
has jurisdiction over mining disputes. But the petition filed below does not involve a mining dispute. What was being protested
are the alleged negative environmental impact of the small-scale mining operation being conducted by Antones Enterprises,
Global Summit Mines Development Corporation and TR Ore in the Municipality of Matnog; the authority of the Governor of
Sorsogon to issue mining permits in favor of these entities; and the perceived indifference of the DENR and local government
officials over the issue. RESOLUTION OF THESE MATTERS does not entail the technical knowledge and expertise of the members
of the Panel but requires an exercise of judicial function.