8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209.

September 03, 2019 ]

861 Phil. 703 ← click for PDF copy

EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]
MONICO A. ABOGADO, ROBERTO M. ASIADO, LARRY
HUGO, ANGELO SADANG, NONELON BALBONTIN,
SALITO LAGROSA, ARZEL BELIDAN, RONALD
GRANDIA, TROY LAGROSA, RONEL BADILLA, ARCHIE
GARCIANO, REGIDOR ASIADO, ELY LOPEZ, EXPEDITO
MAGDAYAO, RENY MAGBANUA, ROMULO CANA, JR.,
ROGELIO HINGPIT, JONEL HUGO, ROBERT VALDEZ,
RIZEN GALVAN, RICARDO NATURAL, SANNY BELIDAN,
ROWEL P. EJONA, FELIX ULZON, RAFFY M. ASIADO,
PRIMO M. ASIADO, ADRIAN P. ABAYAN, RANDY
DACUMOS, DANILO BELONO, ROMEO MALAGUIT,
DENNIS BANIA, JASON VILLAMOR, GARY CASTILLOS,
ALBERTO SONIO, DOLIE DUSONG, BJ PIRING AND JING
MALINAO (COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS THE
"KALAYAAN PALAWAN FARMERS AND FISHERFOLK
ASSOCIATION"), NILO LABRADOR, W1LFREDO
LABANDELO AND ROLANDO LABANDELO, AND
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES,
PETITIONERS, VS. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY HON. ROY A. CIMATU, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY HON.
EMMANUEL PIÑOL, BUREAU OF FISHERIES AND
AQUATIC RESOURCES, REPRESENTED BY NATIONAL
DIRECTOR HON. EDUARDO B. GONGONA, PHILIPPINE
NAVY, REPRESENTED BY FLAG OFFICER IN
COMMAND HON. VADM ROBERT EMPEDRAD, PN,
PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD, REPRESENTED BY
COMMANDANT HON. ADMIRAL ELSON E.
HERMOGINO, PCG, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF HON. PDG. OSCAR
ALBAYALDE, PNP MARITIME GROUP, REPRESENTED
BY DIRECTOR HON. PCSUPT RODELIO B. JOCSON, AND
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 1/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, REPRESENTED BY

SECRETARY HON. MENARDO I. GUEVARRA,
RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION
LEONEN, J.:

Cases involving the public interest which seek to protect the marginalized and
oppressed deserve more attention from their lawyers as compared with any
other case. Those who have the least deserve to have more in law.

Before this Court is an Omnibus Motion with Manifestation[1] and

Compliance with Motion[2] requesting, among others, the withdrawal of a
Petition seeking writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus.

On April 16, 2019, a Petition[3] was filed by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, Monico A. Abogado, Roberto M. Asiado, Larry Hugo, Angelo
Sadang, Nonelon Balbontin, Salito Lagrosa, Arzel Belidan, Ronald Grandia,
Troy Lagrosa, Ronel Badilla, Archie Garciano, Regidor Asiado, Ely Lopez,
Expedito Magdayao, Reny Magbanua, Romulo Cana, Jr., Rogelio Hingpit,
Jonel Hugo, Robert Valdez, Rizen Galvan, Ricardo Natural, Sanny Belidan,
Rowel P. Ejona, Felix Ulzon, Raffy M. Asiado, Primo M. Asiado, Adrian P.
Abayan, Randy Dacumos, Danilo Belono, Romeo Malaguit, Dennis Bania,
Jason Villamor, Gary Castillos, Alberto Sonio, Dolie Dusong, BJ Piring, and
Jing Malinao,[4] all members of the Kalayaan Palawan Farmers and Fisherfolk
Association, along with Nilo Labrador, Wilfredo Labandelo, and Rolando
Labandelo, who were residents of Sitio Kinabuksan, Cawag, Zambales.

They sought the issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus

under A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, or the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases, over Panatag Shoal (Scarborough Shoal), Panganiban Reef (Mischief
Reef), and Ayungin Shoal (Second Thomas Shoal), located within the
Philippines' exclusive economic zone.

Petitioners relied on the Permanent Court of Arbitration's findings in its July

12, 2016 Arbitral Award[5] that Chinese fisherfolk and China's construction of
artificial lands have caused severe environmental damage to the marine
environment of these areas. They alleged that their "constitutional right to a
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 2/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

balanced and healthful ecology"[6] was being threatened and was being
violated due to the "omissions, failure, and/or refusal of Respondents to
enforce Philippine laws in Panatag Shoal, Ayungin Shoal, and Panganiban
Reef."[7]

Respondents in this case include the Department of Environment and Natural

Resources, represented by Secretary Roy A. Cimatu, the Department of
Agriculture, represented by Secretary Emmanuel Piñol, the Bureau Of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, represented by National Director Eduardo B.
Gongona, the Philippine Navy, represented by Flag Officer In Command
Robert Empedrad, the Philippine Coast Guard, represented by Admiral Elson
E. Hermogino, the Philippine National Police, represented by Chief Oscar
Albayalde, the Philippine National Police Maritime Group, represented by
Director Rodelio B. Jocson, and the Department Of Justice, represented by
Secretary Menardo I. Guevarra.

On May 3, 2019, this Court issued a Writ of Kalikasan and ordered

respondents to file a verified return within a non-extendible period of 10 days
from receipt of notice.[8]

On May 24, 2019, respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General,
filed their Verified Return with Comment.[9] They argued that the Petition
suffered from fatal procedural infirmities, which should have warranted its
dismissal. They alleged that the Petition failed to state a cause of action since
petitioners merely relied on the 2016 Arbitral Award as evidence and failed to
attach the required judicial affidavits of witnesses.[10]

Respondents likewise made several factual allegations to substantiate their

argument that they complied with environmental laws and regulations in the
protection and preservation of Panatag Shoal (Scarborough Shoal), Panganiban
Reef (Mischief Reef), and Ayungin Shoal (Second Thomas Shoal).[11] They
submitted that since the case involved the conduct of foreign relations, the
remedies sought by petitioners were diplomatic and political in nature, and
hence "transcend[ed] mere enforcement of environmental laws."[12]

On June 4, 2019, this Court issued a Resolution[13] setting the case for oral
arguments.[14] Preliminary conference was held on June 18, 2019. On the

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 3/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

same day, this Court issued the Advisory[15] for oral arguments. Parties were
informed to submit their written copies of opening statements, tables of
authorities, copies of any document to be presented, and all slide presentations
no later than July 1, 2019.[16]

On July 2, 2019, this Court issued a Resolution[17] informing the parties that
Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio voluntarily inhibited from the case.

The first round of oral arguments was held on July 2, 2019. Petitioners'
counsel Atty. Andre C. Palacios and collaborating counsel Atty. Jose Manuel I.
Diokno presented their opening statements and were interpellated by this
Court En Banc.[18]

On July 9, 2019, the oral arguments resumed, with Solicitor General Jose C.
Calida (Solicitor General Calida) about to present respondents' arguments.
However, before presenting his opening statement, he orally manifested that he
be allowed to submit as additional compliance a Manifestation and Motion,[19]
along with its attached documents, to be admitted as part of the case records.
[20]

The documents attached to the Manifestation and Motion were affidavits[21]

executed by 19 of the 40 fisherfolk-petitioners before respondent Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, requesting that their signatures be withdrawn
from the Petition, which they claimed they did not read and was not explained
to them before signing. They stated that they had been misinformed about the
nature of the Petition filed before this Court. Thinking that the respondents
would be the foreign nationals who caused the environmental damage, they
said that they were surprised to hear that the case was instead filed against the
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and the Philippine Navy, whom
they considered allies.

In particular, the affidavits read:

[Sinumpaang Salaysay of petitioners Monico Abogado and

Roberto Asiado, May 29, 2019]

1. Kami ay minsang kinausap ni Atty[.] Ann Fatima Chavez

patungkol sa pag proteksyon sa lugar naming sa Pag-Asa laban sa
mga dayuhan gaya ng mga intsik at Vietnamese na gumagamit ng
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 4/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

cyanide at dinamita sa kanilang pangingisda;

2. May inilatag syang dokumento sa amin kung paano

mapangalagaan ang kalikasan sa aming lugar at para sa aming
ikabubuti bilang mangingisda. Ipinaliwanag pa sa amin kung ano
ang mga nakasaad sa dokumento na ang layunin lamang ay ang
pangalagaan ang karagatan na buong nasasakupan ng Kalayaan, at
para rin sa kapakanan naming mga mangingisda;

....

6. Walang nabanggit sa amin na kakasuhan ang ano mang ahensya

ditto (sic) dahil kung nagkaganon, talagang di kami pipirma.
Nagulat na lang kami nang malaman namin na tila ginagamit ang
asosasyon namin sa Kalayaan upang kasuhan pala ang mismong
mga ahensya na ito na syang katuwang namin doon;

7. Pagkatapos ng pag-uusap na iyon, ipinabatid naming sa aming

mga kasamahan na may pipirmahan sila at suportahan namin ito
dahil ang buong akala naman namin baka may donasyon o
benepisyo para sa aming mga mangingisda at kasamahang
magsasaka;

8. Ang buod ng salaysay na ito ay upang ilahad ang katotohanan

na iba ang paliwanag sa amin ni Atty. Chavez sa lumalabas ngayon
na reklamo "daw" na mula sa amin. Ito po ay mariin naming
pinapasinungalingan. Di po katanggap-tanggap sa amin na
mismong navy at coast guard na siyang katuwang namin sa Pag-
Asa ay kakasuhan namin ngayon. Wala kaming alam dito at di
naming suportado and inihaing petisyon laban sa mga ahensyang
ito;

9. Wala kaming kopya na nakuha dahil buong tiwala kami dun sa

aming napag-usapan para sa aming benepisyo at kapakanan. Muli,
walang nabanggit na pagsasampa ng reklamo laban sa katuwang
naming mga ahensyang ito. Parang niloko po kami sa lagay na 'to
e. Maganda ang samahan naming ng navy pero tila sinisira kami
sa isa't isa.[22] (Emphasis supplied)

[Sinumpaang Salaysay of petitioner Monico Abogado, June 27,

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 5/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

2019]

8. Nagtungo ulit ako ng Navy sa sumunod na araw at doon ko na

lang nalaman na pati pala ang mga ibang ahensiya ng gobyerno,
kasali na ang BFAR, ay kinasuhan din pala gamit ang aming
asosasyon bilang petitioner. At masakit sa loob ko na may isinama
pang ibang pangalan na hindi naman myembro ng aming asosasyon
tulad nina, NILO LABRADOR, WILFREDO LABANDELO at
ROLANDO LABANDELO na hindi namin ka-myembro, at di
namin kilala. Kami ay 37 lang na miyembro ng aming asosasyon at
hindi sila kasali. Para sa akin, isang malaking panlilinlang ito at
panggagamit lamang sa aming asosasyon. Kaming mga maliliit
ang naiipit dito. Ngayong araw ko lang nalaman na ang nasabing
tatlong mangingisda pala ay kasama naming napangalanan bilang
petitioner pala at hindi pinapalabas bilang myembro ng aming
asosasyon;

9. Pinapatunayan ko po na wala akong kinalaman sa petisyon na

sinasabi nila laban sa mga ahensiya ng gobyerno. Wala akong
nababasa na petisyon laban sa Navy, BFAR at ibang ahensiya. Wala
akong pinipirmahan na petisyon laban sa mga ahensiya. Na sa
pagkakatanda ko ay may nabanggit lamang si Atty. Chavez sa akin
dati na petisyon laban sa mga dayuhang nangingisda sa Kalayaan
ngunit ang petisyon na sinasabi niya ay hindi ko din nakita at
pinirmahan.

....

14. Wala akong anumang hawak na kopya ng petisyon laban sa

mga dayuhang mangingisda at wala din akong hawak na kopya ng
petisyon laban sa mga ahensiya ng gobyerno. Muli, walang
nabanggit sa akin na pagsasampa ng reklamo laban sa katuwang
naming mga ahensyang ito. Parang niloko yung asosasyon namin.
Maganda ang samahan namin sa Navy at iba pang ahensiya pero
tila sinisira kami sa isa't isa;

15. Na ngayong araw ko lang nakita ang buong kopya ng

sinasabing petisyon. Nagulat ako na may nakita akong katulad ng
aking pirma duon sa baba ng "verification" ng parte ng petisyon.
Muli, wala akong natatandaan na may pinirmahan akong ganun at
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 6/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

wala din akong nababasang ganung papel[.][23] (Emphasis

supplied)

[Sinumpaang Salaysay of petitioner Roberto Asiado, June 27,

2019]

4. May inilatag siyang dokumento sa akin kung paano

mapangangalagaan ang kalikasan sa aming lugar at para sa aming
ikabubuti bilang mga mangingisda. Ang sabi ni Atty. Ann Fatima
Chavez akin (sic) ay dokumentong ito ay isang petisyon laban sa
mga dayuhan, sa kanilang illegal na pangingisda at paninira sa
ating karagatan. Ipinaliwanag pa sa akin kung ano ang mga
nakasaad sa dokumento na ang layunin lamang ay ang pangalagaan
ang karagatan na buong nasasakupan ng Pag-Asa, Kalayaan,
Palawan, at para rin sa kapakanan naming mga mangingisda;

5. Pinasadahan kong binasa ang dokumento na ito pero dahil

maganda naman ang pagkapaliwanag at mahaba-haba siyang
basahin at dahil malaki ang tiwala ko kay Atty. Ann Fatima
Chavez, pumayag ako na pumirma dito kahit na di ko nabasa ang
nilalaman ng petisyon;

6. Dito ako pansamantalang nakabase sa Puerto Princesa, Palawan,

at dahil ako ang president ng aming asosasyon, ako ang siyang
kinausap patungkol sa sinasabing layunin na maprotektahan ang
kapakanan naming mga mangingisda sa Pag-Asa, Kalayaan,
Palawan;

7. Ako mismo ang naghatid ng napirmahang petisyon na galing sa

Pag-Asa, Kalayaan, Palawan sa law office nina Atty. Chavez sa
may gasoline station sa Malvar, Puerto Princesa, Palawan. Matapos
noon, di na kami nagkita pa ni Atty. Chavez;

....

11. Wala akong nakuhang kopya ng petisyon dahil buo ang tiwala
ko kay Atty. Chavez. Muli, walang nabanggit na pagsasampa ng
reklamo laban sa mga ahensyang ito. Parang niloko po kami ni
Atty. Chavez sa lagay na ito. Maganda ang samahan naming ng
BFAR, Philippine Navy at Philippine Coast guard pero tila sinisira
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 7/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

kami laban sa isa't isa[.][24] (Emphasis supplied)

[Sinumpaang Salaysay of petitioner Arzel Belidan, June 27,

2019]

2. Noong mga February 2018, nasa opisina ako ng asosasyon

namin dito sa Puerto Princesa. Pinatawag ako para utusang
magpadala ng isang envelope papuntang Brgy. Pag-asa, Kalayaan,
Palawan;

3. Ang envelope na aking ipinadala ay naka seal ng masking tape,

at naka address ito sa pangalan ni Nonelon Balbontin, myembro ng
aming asosasyon na naka base sa Brgy. Pag-asa, Kalayaan,
Palawan noon;

4. Hindi ko nakita ang loob ng envelope. Hindi ko rin po binuksan

ang envelope na iyon. Wala akong alam sa nilalaman na dokumento
ng envelope na iyon, at kung ano na ang nangyari duon pagkatapos
kong naipadala ito;

5. Ngayon, nagulat nalang po ako na may petisyon daw kaming

inihain laban sa mga ahensya ng gobyerno, at ang pangalan ko ay
nakasali sa mga nag rereklamo. Ako din ay nabigla ng may pirma
ako sa nasabing petition. Sa katunayan wala akong pinipirmahan
napetsyon laban sa mga ahensya ng gobyerno kagaya ng BFAR,
Philippine Navy, Philippine Coast Guard at iba pa;

6. Wala naman po akong reklamo sa mga nasabing ahensya ng

gobyerno dahil ang mga ito ang tumutulong at kaagapay at
katuwang namin sa Brgy. Pag-Asa, Kalayaan, Palawan;

7. Marami pong naitulong ang BFAR, Philippine Navy at

Philippine Coast Guard sa amin;

8. Ang buod ng salaysay na ito ay upang ilahad ang katotohanan na

hindi ako pumirma sa nasabing reklamo laban sa mga ahensyang
ito. Di po katanggap-tanggap sa akin na mismong BFAR,
Philippine Navy at Philippine Coast Guard na siyang katuwang
namin sa Pag-Asa ay kakasuhan namin ngayon. Wala kaming alam
dito at di namin suportado ang inihaing petisyon laban sa mga
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 8/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

ahensyang ito[.][25] (Emphasis supplied)

[Sinumpaang Salaysay of petitioner Angelo Sadang, July 4,

2019]

2. Na ako ay nautusang mag pa-ikot ng dalawang pahina ng papel

para pirmahan ng mga kasama ko sa asosasyon;

3. Ang pagkakaalam ko po ang papel na iyon ay para sa mga

benepisyo ng ibibigay ng gobyerno para sa amin. Wala akong
kaalaman na ang papel na iyon ay kaso pala laban sa gobyerno; at

4. Noong nakaraang linggo ko lang nalaman sa president naming

(sic) na meron palang isang petisyon laban sa mga ahensiya ng
gobyerno na kami daw ang nagsampa. Pinapatunayan ko po na
wala akong kinalaman sa petisyon at wala akong pinipirmahan na
petisyon laban sa mga ahensiya[.][26] (Emphasis supplied)

[Handwritten letter of petitioner Randy Dacumos, July 4, 2019]

Ako[,] RANDY DACUMOS[,] resid[e]nte ng Bgy. Pag-Asa, Mun.

of Kalayaan Member ng Samahan ng Fisher Fo[l]ks[.] Ako po ay
nagulat ng (sic) malaman kong nadawit [ang aming] pangalan sa
isinampa[ng] kaso[.] Gusto ko pong malaman nin[y]o na wala
akong pin[i]rmahang papel [na] kinakas[u]han ang ibang [ahensya]
ng go[by]erno.[27]

[Handwritten letter of petitioner Larry Hugo, July 4, 2019]

Ako po si Larry Hugo nagmula po ako sa bayan ng Kalayaan. Ako

yong Vice Prest. (sic) ng Samahan ng mga [illegible] na
mangingisda ng Kalayaan[.] Hindi po totoo na kami po ay pumirma
doon sa sinasabing [illegible] kas[u]han ang B[F]AR, NAVY[.]
Inos[e]nt[e] po kami sa naturang problema[.] Nagamit lamang po
ang aming Samahan para sa kanilang mga masamang plano kung
ano man yon![28]

[Handwritten letter of petitioner Romulo Caña, Jr., July 4,

2019]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 9/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

Ako po si Romulo C. Caña, Jr. taga Barangay Pag-asa Kalayaan

Palawan[.] Wala po akong alam sa pirmahan nagulat nalang po ako
na nadamay ang pangalan ko sa kaso. Ang alam kolang (sic) ay
may ipamimigay sila sa amin [b]ilang tulong po sa amin. Wala
talaga po akong alam diyan.[29]

[Handwritten letter of petitioner Danilo Belono, July 4, 2019]

Ako si Danilo Belono.

May asawa at anak[.] Naninirahan sa Pag-Asa, Kalayaan,

Palawan[.] Isa po ak[o]ng member sa Fish[er] Fo[lk.] Hindi po
alam na ganon ang ma[n]gyayari[.] Hindi po kami nag pirma laban
sa ibang samahan na t[u]m[u]t[u]long sa amin (sic) tulad po na
BFAR at mga su[n]dalo[.][30]

[Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay of petitioners Regidor

Asiado and Richard Galvan, July 5, 2019 and Pinagsamang
Sinumpaang Salaysay of petitioners Dennis Bania, Felix Ulzon,
Jing Malinao, Ronald Grandia, Expedito Magdayao, Robert
Valdez, Raffy M. Asiado, Primo M. Asiado, Adrian P. Abayan,
and Romeo M. Malaguit, July 5, 2019]

2. Na nalaman na lang namin mula sa mga kasamahan namin sa

asosasyon na meron palang isang petisyon laban sa mga ahensiya
ng gobyerno na kami daw ang nagsampa. Pinapatunayan po
naming (sic) na wala kaming kinalaman sa petisyon;

3. Na hindi po naming (sic) kayang kasuhan ang mga ahensiya ng

gobyerno dahil sila ang tumutulong sa aming mga mangingisda;

4. Walang nabang[g]it sa amin na kakasuhan ang ano mang

ahensya ng gobyerno ng ating bansa dahil kung nag kaganoon,
talagang di kami pipirma. Nagulat na lang kami nang malaman
namin na tila ginagamit ang asosasyon namin sa Kalayaan upang
kasuhan pala ang mismong mga ahensya na ito na syang katuwang
namin sa Kalayaan[.][31] (Emphasis supplied)

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 10/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

[Sinumpaang Salayasay of petitioners Wilfredo M. Labandelo

and Nilo P. Labrador, July 5, 2019]

5. Noong Abril 2019, kami (Wilfredo Labandelo, Nilo Labrador) ay

pinapatawag ng IBP sa kanilang tanggapan sa Maynila kung saan
may pinakita sa aming Petition. Kung anuman ang nilalaman ng
Petition na ito ay hindi namin nalaman noong pagkakataong iyon
sapagkat di kami binigyan ng pagkakataon para mabasa ang
nilalalman nito.

6. Sinubukan rin naming manghingi ng kopya ng nasabing Petition

sa IBP at pinangakuan na bibigyan nito subalit hanggang ngayon
wala pa rin nakakarating sa amin. Sa dahilang ito, pinapatunayan
namin na hanggang sa araw na ito ay hindi pa rin namin alam ang
buong nilalaman ng Petition na ito.

7. Nalaman nalang namin sa news na aming napanood sa

telebisyon at sa Rappler na ang Petition na aming pinirmahan pala
ay tungkol sa mga nangyayaring problema sa West Philippine Sea.

8. Pinapatunayan namin na wala kaming kinalaman sa naturang

Petition na laban sa anumang ahensiya ng gobyerno sapagkat ito ay
magkaiba sa kasalukuyang problema na inilapit namin sa IBP gaya
ng pagpapasara ng paaralan, at ang pagpapaalis sa mga naninirahan
sa Sitio Kinabukasan.

9. Lumapit po kami sa IBP na walang intensyong magreklamo o

mag-file ng Petition laban sa mga ahensiya ng gobyerno gaya ng
BFAR, DENR, DA, Philippine Coast Guard, at iba pa. Wala rin po
nabanggit sa amin sa kahit anumang pagkakataon na magsasampa
kami kasama ng IBP ng anumang kaso sa mga nasabing ahensiya.
[32] (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioners' counsels objected to Solicitor General Calida's Manifestation and

Motion, arguing that it was unethical for respondent Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources to have conferred with petitioners without their counsels'
knowledge.[33]

In view of this development, the parties were required to move in the premises
and submit their respective compliances by 4:30 p.m. on July 12, 2019.[34]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 11/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

On July 12, 2019, petitioners' counsels filed a Motion for Extension of Time to
Confer with Clients and Obtain Special Authority.[35] Citing Rule 138, Section
23[36] of the Rules of Court, they requested a 10-day extension, or until July
22, 2019, to confer with their clients before proceeding with any action that
would result in the termination of the case.

The Office of the Solicitor General, on the other hand, filed a Compliance (Re:
Order to Move in the Premises).[37] It opposed the Motion for Extension of
Time, saying that the pleading "will not cure the infirmity that the Petition was
initiated by counsel without the full knowledge and understanding of the
fisherfolk-petitioners."[38] As such, it requested that the case be immediately
dismissed.[39]

On July 16, 2019, this Court issued a Resolution[40] granting the Motion for
Extension of Time until 12:00 noon of July 19, 2019 and noting the
Compliance. It also reminded counsels for all parties to observe the rule on
subjudice and refrain from making statements about the case to the media or
on social media.[41]

At 4:18 p.m. on July 19, 2019, petitioners' counsels filed an Omnibus Motion
with Manifestation.[42] They informed this Court that they met with six (6) of
the fisherfolk-petitioners, who signified that they no longer wished to pursue
the case. They also signed a handwritten letter, which read:

Mga Ginoo,

Una po sa lahat ay nais naming magpasalamat sa inyong panahong

ginugol sa pakikipagpulong sa amin.

Matapos po ang ating pag-uusap kahapon, isinangguni po namin

ang usapin sa mga kapwa naming kasapi at aming napagkaisahang
iatras nyo na lamang ang kaso, nang sa gayon ay maging tahimik
na ang aming mga buhay.

Bilang mga kinatawan ng samahan ng Fisherfolks ng Kalayaan at

upang patunayan ang kagustuhan ng nakararami, aming inilagda

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 12/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

ang aming mga pangalan ngayong araw na ito sa Lungsod ng Pto.

Princesa.[43]

Petitioners' counsels stated that the lawyers of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines-Palawan Chapter were able to meet with these six (6) fisherfolk-
petitioners in Puerto Princesa City as they could not leave yet for Pag-asa
Island due to engine trouble in their vessel. As for the 20 other fisherfolk-
petitioners who had signed the Petition, the lawyers were unable to meet them
as they were "on Pag-asa Island and the undersigned counsels cannot travel to
meet them there; or ... communicate with them as Philippine telephone
companies have no or very weak network coverage there."[44]

Petitioners' counsels also stated that despite "heavy rain, strong wind, and large
waves[,]"[45] the lawyers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Zambales
Chapter exerted efforts to meet with the three (3) fisherfolk-petitioners in Sitio
Kinabuksan, Zambales. However, they were only able to meet with petitioner
Wilfredo Labandelo (Wilfredo), who informed them that his brother, petitioner
Rolando Labandelo (Rolando), had already moved to Palawan on June 22,
2019 and that petitioner Nilo Labrador (Labrador) has since relocated to
another place on July 12, 2019 but did not leave any contact details.[46]
Petitioner Wilfredo also executed a handwritten letter stating:

Mga Ginoo:

Pakiurong nyo ang kaso namin Abogado vs DENR[.][47]

Petitioners' counsels also informed this Court that on July 19, 2019, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors adopted resolutions
requesting the Petition's withdrawal.[48] Moreover, they again objected to the
Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation and Motion dated July 9, 2019,
which they said "has caused this case to become a media spectacle instead of
being a case that presents important issues concerning the environment in the
West Philippine Sea."[49] Thus, they prayed that this Court:

1. GRANT the following Petitioners' Motion to Withdraw the

Petition for the following Petitioners:

1. MONICO ABOGADO
2. ROBERTO ASIADO
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 13/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

3. NONELON BALBONTIN
4. RANDY DACUMOS
5. ANGELO SADANG
6. RENY MAGBANUA
7. WILFREDO LABANDELO
8. THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

2. GRANT the undersigned counsels' Motion to Withdraw as

Counsel for the following Petitioners:

1. RICARDO NATURAL
2. LARRY HUGO
3. ARZEL BELIDAN
4. RONALD GRANDIA
5. RONEL BADILLA
6. EXPEDITO MAGDAYAO
7. JONEL HUGO
8. ROBERT VALDEZ
9. SANNY BELIDAN
10. ROWL P. EJONA (sic)
11. FELIX ULZON
12. RAFFY M. ASIADO
13. PRIMO M. ASIADO
14. ADRIAN P. ABAYAN
15. DANILO BELONO
16. ROMEO MALAGUIT
17. DENNIS BANIA
18. JING MALINAO
19. NILO LABRADOR
20. ROLANDO LABANDELO.

3. GRANT the Petitioners' Motion to Expunge from the Records

Respondents' Manifestation [and] Motion filed on 9 July
2019.

4. NOTE the above manifestations.[50]

In a July 30, 2019 Resolution,[51] this Court deferred action on the Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel and required petitioners' counsels to:

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 14/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

(a) exert more efforts to reach their clients through means of

communication they have established when they engaged them as
their clients; (b) provide adequate proof that the 20 other clients
have actual knowledge of the contents of their petition; and (c)
provide legal justification that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
may be granted while leaving most of the petitioners without
representation.[52]

Petitioners' counsels were given a non-extendible period of seven (7) days[53]

to comply with the Resolution.

On August 14, 2019, petitioners' counsels filed a Motion to Admit Compliance

with Motion.[54] In it, they explained that while they were able to send through
registered mail a copy of the Compliance to the Office of the Solicitor General
on August 13, 2019, "the heavier-than-usual traffic"[55] caused their messenger
to arrive a few minutes after 5:00 p.m. and fail to file, the pleading before this
Court. Hence, they prayed that the Compliance with Motion still be admitted
by this Court.

In their attached Compliance with Motion,[56] petitioners' counsels explained

that on August 4, 2019, members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-
Zambales Chapter met with fisherfolk-petitioners Rolando and Labrador, who
provided them with letters stating:

Mga ginoo!
  Pakiurong nyo ang kaso naming Abogado vs. DENR
     
 Rolano M.
 
Labandelo
   Aug. 4/ 2019 (sic)
     
....  
     
Mga ginoo:  
     
  Pakiurong nyo ang kaso namin Abogado vs. DENR
     
   Nilo Labrador

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 15/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

 Oua. 4/2019 (sic)

 
[57]

Petitioners' counsels likewise stated that Atty. Josefina Ela Bueno, the former
president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Zambales Chapter, executed
an affidavit narrating how she and the other officers of the Chapter met with
and explained the Petition's contents to the fisherfolk-petitioners, recounting
how the latter voluntarily signed its Verification/Certification.[58] "However,
due to logistical difficulties brought about by the inclement weather and the
distance between Zambales and Manila,"[59] petitioners' counsels said that the
affidavit could not be attached to the pleading. Hence, they prayed for
additional time to file this affidavit.[60]

To prove the difficulties in contacting their clients, petitioners' counsels

attached a Certification[61] from the Kalayaan Municipal Administrator, who
stated that there had been no cellphone or internet service in Pag-asa Island
from the third quarter of 2016 until July 27, 2019.[62]

Petitioners' counsels further manifested that on August 2, 2019, in Puerto

Princesa City members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Palawan
Chapter met with fisherfolk-petitioner Ricardo Natural (Natural), who
expressed his desire to withdraw the case.[63]

Petitioners' counsels likewise manifested that at around 10:00 a.m. on the same
day, they were able to videoconference with 12 of the fisherfolk-petitioners,
namely, Arzel Belidan, Ronald Grandia, Expedito Magdayao, Jonel Hugo,
Robert Valdez, Felix Ulson, Raffy Asiado, Adrian Abayan, Danilo Belono, and
Jing Malinao. They did the same with two (2) other fisherfolk-petitioners,
Romeo Malaguit and Dennis Bania, at 2:00 p.m. that day. While fisherfolk-
petitioner Larry Hugo (Larry) was unable to join the video conference, he,
together with the 14 fisherfolk-petitioners, executed a letter stating their desire
to join the other fisherfolk-petitioners in withdrawing the Petition.[64]

Petitioners' counsels alleged that Sanny Belidan (Sanny) and Rowel Ejona
(Ejona), the remaining fisherfolk-petitioners who have yet to give their
conformity to the Petition's withdrawal, could not be contacted despite several
attempts through their mobile phones.[65] Leonila De Jesus, the officer-in-
charge for Pag-asa Island, also confirmed that they were not in Pag-asa Island.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 16/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

[66] Petitioners' counsels maintained, however, that two (2) officers of the
Kalayaan Palawan Farmers and Fisherfolk Association would execute an
affidavit narrating the circumstances of their participation and their
understanding of the Petition's contents. As such, they requested additional
time to submit the affidavit.[67]

In sum, petitioners' counsels prayed that this Court:

1. NOTE this Compliance;

2. GRANT the undersigned counsels' motion for additional

time, or until 16 August 2019 (Friday) to file the affidavit of
Atty. Josefina Ela Bueno and the letter from the officers of
the Kalayaan Palawan Farmers and Fisherfolk Association;
and

3. GRANT the Motion to Withdraw the Petition.[68]

This Court resolves to grant the Motion to Withdraw the Petition. The Petition
is dismissed, without passing upon any of the substantive issues raised.
However, we take this occasion to discuss the following points.

The nature of a writ of kalikasan is stated in Rule 7, Section 1 of the Rules of

Procedure for Environmental Cases:[69]

SECTION 1. Nature of the writ. — The writ is a remedy available

to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people's
organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest
group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on
behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private
individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants
in two or more cities or provinces.

Paje v. Casiño[70] discusses the scope of the writ and the reliefs that may be
granted under it:

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 17/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

The writ is categorized as a special civil action and was, thus,

conceptualized as an extraordinary remedy, which aims to provide
judicial relief from threatened or actual violation/s of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of a
magnitude or degree of damage that transcends political and
territorial boundaries. It is intended "to provide a stronger defense
for environmental rights through judicial efforts where institutional
arrangements of enforcement, implementation and legislation have
fallen short" and seeks "to address the potentially exponential
nature of large-scale ecological threats."

Under Section 1 of Rule 7, the following requisites must be present

to avail of this extraordinary remedy: (1) there is an actual or
threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology; (2) the actual or threatened violation arises from
an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or
private individual or entity; and (3) the actual or threatened
violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants
in two or more cities or provinces.

Expectedly, the Rules do not define the exact nature or degree of

environmental damage but only that it must be sufficiently grave,
in terms of the territorial scope of such damage, so as to call for the
grant of this extraordinary remedy. The gravity of environmental
damage sufficient to grant the writ is, thus, to be decided on a case-
to-case basis.

If the petitioner successfully proves the foregoing requisites, the

court shall render judgment granting the privilege of the writ of
kalikasan. Otherwise, the petition shall be denied. If the petition is
granted, the court may grant the reliefs provided for under Section
15 of Rule 7, to wit:

Section 15. Judgment. — Within sixty (60) days from

the time the petition is submitted for decision, the court
shall render judgment granting or denying the privilege
of the writ of kalikasan.

The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 18/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

following:

(a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and

desist from committing acts or neglecting the
performance of a duty in violation of environmental
laws resulting in environmental destruction or damage;

(b) Directing the respondent public official, government

agency, private person or entity to protect, preserve,
rehabilitate or restore the environment;

(c) Directing the respondent public official, government

agency, private person or entity to monitor strict
compliance with the decision and orders of the court;

(d) Directing the respondent public official, government

agency, or private person or entity to make periodic
reports on the execution of the final judgment; and

(e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the

people to a balanced and healthful ecology or to the
protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of
the environment, except the award of damages to
individual petitioners.

It must be noted, however, that the above enumerated reliefs are

non-exhaustive. The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are
broad, comprehensive and non-exclusive.[71]

Thus, a writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy that "covers

environmental damages the magnitude of which transcends both political and
territorial boundaries."[72] The damage must be caused by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official, public employee, or private individual or entity.
It must affect the inhabitants of at least two (2) cities or provinces.[73]

In civil, criminal, and administrative cases, parties are clear as to the quantum
of evidence necessary to prove their case. Civil cases require a preponderance
of evidence,[74] or "evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing,
that which is offered in opposition to it[.]"[75] Administrative cases require
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 19/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

substantial evidence,[76] or "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally
reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise."[77] Criminal cases require
proof beyond reasonable doubt,[78] or "that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind."[79] In petitions for the issuance of a writ
of kalikasan, however, the quantum of evidence is not specifically stated.

Other special civil actions such as certiorari,[80] prohibition,[81] and

mandamus[82] must be filed by a party that is directly injured or will be injured
by the act and omission complained of. However, a petition for the writ of
kalikasan may be filed on behalf of those whose right is violated. The Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases only requires that the public interest group
is duly accredited.[83] Filing through representation is also allowed for other
extraordinary writs such as habeas corpus,[84] amparo[85] and habeas data.[86]

This Court explained that "the Rules [of Procedure for Environmental Cases]
do[es] not define the exact nature or degree of environmental damage but only
that it must be sufficiently grave, in terms of the territorial scope of such
damage[.]"[87] Every petition, therefore, must be examined on a case-to-case
basis. It is imperative, however, that even before a petition for its issuance can
be filed, the petition must be verified and must contain:

(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;

(b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent or if

the name and personal circumstances are unknown and uncertain,
the respondent may be described by an assumed appellation;

(c) The environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened

to be violated, the act or omission complained of, and the
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

(d) All relevant and material evidence consisting of the affidavits of

witnesses, documentary evidence, scientific or other expert studies,
and if possible, object evidence;

(e) The certification of petitioner under oath that: (1) petitioner has
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 20/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and no such
other action or claim is pending therein; (2) if there is such other
pending action or claim, a complete statement of its present status;
(3) if petitioner should learn that the same or similar action or claim
has been filed or is pending, petitioner shall report to the court that
fact within five (5) days therefrom; and

(f) The reliefs prayed for which may include a prayer for the
issuance of a TEPO.[88]

Parties that seek the issuance of the writ of kalikasan, whether on their own or
on others' behalf, carry the burden of substantiating the writ's elements. Before
private parties or public interest groups may proceed with the case, they must
be ready with the evidence necessary for the determination of the writ's
issuance.

In LNL Archipelago Minerals v. Agham Party List,[89] this Court denied the
petition for the issuance of the writ filed by a party list group advocating for
the protection of the environment. This was due to the group's failure to
substantiate its allegations:

It is well-settled that a party claiming the privilege for the issuance

of a Writ of Kalikasan has to show that a law, rule or regulation
was violated or would be violated. In the present case, the
allegation by Agham that two laws — the Revised Forestry Code,
as amended, and the Philippine Mining Act — were violated by
LAMI was not adequately substantiated by Agham. Even the facts
submitted by Agham to establish environmental damage were mere
general allegations.

Second, Agham's allegation that there was a "mountain" [levelled]

in LAMI's port site was earlier established as false as the
"mountain" was non-existent as proven by the testimonies of the
witnesses and reports made by environmental experts and persons
who have been educated and trained in their respective fields.[90]

This was, unfortunately, not the only time that environmental advocates have
come to this Court unprepared. In Paje,[91] this Court denied a petition filed

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 21/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

against the construction of a coal-fired power plant in Subic Bay Industrial

Park for the public interest group's failure to provide the necessary evidence:

The records of this case painfully chronicle the embarrassingly

inadequate evidence marshalled by those that initially filed the
Petition for a Writ of Kalikasan. Even with the most conscientious
perusal of the records and with the most sympathetic view for the
interests of the community and the environment, the obvious
conclusion that there was not much thought or preparation in
substantiating the allegations made in the Petition cannot be
hidden. Legal advocacy for the environment deserves much more.
[92]

The imminence or emergency of an ecological disaster should not be an excuse

for litigants to do away with their responsibility of substantiating their
petitions before the courts. As with any special civil action for extraordinary
writs, parties seeking the writ of kalikasan must be ready with the evidence
required to prove their allegations by the time the petition is filed. Hasty
slipshod petitions, filed in the guise of environmental advocacy, only serve to
undermine that advocacy:

Environmental advocacy is primarily motivated by care and

compassion for communities and the environment. It can rightly be
a passionately held mission. It is founded on faith that the world as
it is now can be different. It implies the belief that the longer view
of protecting our ecology should never be sacrificed for short-term
convenience.

However, environmental advocacy is not only about passion. It is

also about responsibility. There are communities with almost no
resources and are at a disadvantage against large projects that might
impact on their livelihoods. Those that take the cudgels lead them
as they assert their ecological rights must show that they have both
the professionalism and the capability to carry their cause forward.
When they file a case to protect the interests of those who they
represent, they should be able to make both allegation and proof.
The dangers from an improperly managed environmental case are
as real to the communities sought to be represented as the dangers
from a project by proponents who do not consider their interests.
[93]

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 22/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

Environmental advocacy requires more than passion for saving the

environment. Thus:

Certainly, there is a need for leaders, organizations, and dedicated

movements that amplify the concerns of communities, groups, and
identities which tend to be put in the margins of forums dominated
by larger and more politically connected commercial interests. This
includes forums that create and implement regulatory frameworks.
Liberal democratic deliberations at times fail to represent the
silenced majority as it succumbs to the powerful minority.

While acknowledging this reality, we also need to be careful that

the chambers of this court do not substitute for the needed political
debate on public issues or the analytical rigor required by truths in
science. We are Justices primarily. While politics and science
envelope some of our important decisions, we should not lose the
humility that the Constitution itself requires of us. We are an
important part of the constitutional order: always only a part, never
one that should dominate. Our decisions have the veneer of finality.
It should never, however, be disguised superiority in any form or
manner.

Political debates indeed also mature when we pronounce the nature

of fundamental rights in concrete cases. Before cases ripen — or, as
in this case, when it has become moot — restraint will be the better
approach. We participate in the shaping of the content of these
fundamental rights only with the guidance of an actual case. This,
among others, distinguishes the judicial function from the purely
political engagement.

....

If any, the resolution of this case implies rigor in environmental

advocacy. Vigilance and passion are the hallmarks of the public
interest movement. There is no reason that the members of this
movement should not evolve the proper skills and attitudes to
properly work the legal system and understand the role of the
judicial process. Environmental advocacy also requires an
understanding of science and the locating of the proper place of
various norms such as the precautionary principle. After all,
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 23/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

representation of marginalized community voices deserves

excellent representation and responsible leadership. Filing a
judicial remedy almost two years too late and without the required
scientific rigor patently required by the allegations and the
arguments misses these standards.[94]

A writ of kalikasan cannot and should not substitute other remedies that may
be available to the parties, whether legal, administrative, or political. Mere
concern for the environment is not an excuse to invoke this Court's jurisdiction
in cases where other remedies are available:

The function of the extraordinary and equitable remedy of a Writ of

Kalikasan should not supplant other available remedies and the
nature of the forums that they provide. The Writ of Kalikasan is a
highly prerogative writ that issues only when there is a showing of
actual or imminent threat and when there is such inaction on the
part of the relevant administrative bodies that will make an
environmental catastrophe inevitable. It is not a remedy that is
availing when there is no actual threat or when imminence of
danger is not demonstrable. The Writ of Kalikasan thus is not an
excuse to invoke judicial remedies when there still remain
administrative forums to properly address the common concern to
protect and advance ecological rights. After all, we cannot presume
that only the Supreme Court can conscientiously fulfill the
ecological duties required of the entire state.[95]

Moreover, there are other legal remedies available:

The writ of kalikasan is not an all-embracing legal remedy to be

wielded like a political tool. It is both an extraordinary and
equitable remedy which assists to prevent environmental
catastrophes. It does not replace other legal remedies similarly
motivated by concern for the environment and the community's
ecological welfare. Certainly, when the petition itself alleges that
remedial and preventive remedies have occurred, the functions of
the writ cease to exist. In case of disagreement, parties need to
exhaust the political and administrative arena. Only when a
concrete cause of action arises out of facts that can be proven with
substantial evidence may the proper legal action be entertained.[96]

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 24/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

A writ of continuing mandamus, on the other hand, "is a special civil action
that may be availed of 'to compel the performance of an act specifically
enjoined by law.'"[97] Rule 8, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases provides:

SECTION 1. Petition for continuing mandamus. — When any

agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or
station in connection with the enforcement or violation of an
environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein, or
unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such
right and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a
verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty, attaching thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the
petition concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation, and
praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to
do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied, and
to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the
malicious neglect to perform the duties of the respondent, under the
law, rules or regulations. The petition shall also contain a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping.

The rationale for the grant of the writ was explained in Boracay Foundation,
Inc. v. Province of Aklan:[98]

Environmental law highlights the shift in the focal-point from the

initiation of regulation by Congress to the implementation of
regulatory programs by the appropriate government agencies.

Thus, a government agency's inaction, if any, has serious

implications on the future of environmental law enforcement.
Private individuals, to the extent that they seek to change the scope
of the regulatory process, will have to rely on such agencies to take
the initial incentives, which may require a judicial component.
Accordingly, questions regarding the propriety of an agency's
action or inaction will need to be analyzed.

This point is emphasized in the availability of the remedy of the

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 25/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

writ of mandamus, which allows for the enforcement of the

conduct of the tasks to which the writ pertains: the performance of
a legal duty.[99]

While Rule 2[100] of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases provides
a civil procedure for the enforcement or violation of environmental laws, Rule
8 provides a distinct remedy and procedure for allegations of unlawful neglect
in the enforcement of environmental laws or the unlawful exclusion in the use
or enjoyment of an environmental right. As with the procedure in special civil
actions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, this procedure also requires
that the petition should be sufficient in form and substance before a court can
take further action. Failure to comply may be basis for the petition's outright
dismissal.[101]

Sufficiency in the substance of a petition for a writ of continuing mandamus

requires:

... that the petition must contain substantive allegations specifically

constituting an actionable neglect or omission and must establish,
at the very least, a prima facie basis for the issuance of the writ,
viz.: (1) an agency or instrumentality of government or its officer
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act or unlawfully
excludes another from the use or enjoyment of a right; (2) the act to
be performed by the government agency, instrumentality or its
officer is specifically enjoined by law as a duty; (3) such duty
results from an office, trust or station in connection with the
enforcement or violation of an environmental law, rule or
regulation or a right therein; and (4) there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the course of law.[102] (Citation omitted)

The writ is essentially a continuing order of the court, 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" and, in order to do this, "the court may compel
the submission of compliance reports from the respondent
government agencies as well as avail of other means to monitor
compliance with its decision."[103]

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 26/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

However, requiring the periodic submission of compliance reports does not

mean that the court acquires supervisory powers over administrative agencies.
This interpretation would violate the principle of the separation of powers
since courts do not have the power to enforce laws, create laws, or revise
legislative actions.[104] The writ should not be used to supplant executive or
legislative privileges. Neither should it be used where the remedies required
are clearly political or administrative in nature.

For this reason, every petition for the issuance of a writ of continuing
mandamus must be clear on the guidelines sought for its implementation and
its termination point. Petitioners cannot merely request the writ's issuance
without specifically outlining the reliefs sought to be implemented and the
period when the submission of compliance reports may cease.

II

This Court likewise takes this occasion to pass upon the prior Motion for
Withdrawal as Counsels for 20 of the fisherfolk-petitioners.

There are 41 petitioners here, consisting of 37 fishers from Palawan, three (3)
fishers from Zambales, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Of the 37 fishers from Palawan, 13 did not verify the Petition.[105] Nineteen
(19) of the 40 fisherfolk-petitioners from both Palawan and Zambales
submitted affidavits[106] to respondent Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources disowning the Petition. In summary:

Name of Whether Whether Whether Whether

petitioner petitioner petitioner petitioner petitioners'
signed the submitted requested counsels
Petition an to asked to
  affidavit to withdraw withdraw as
the BFAR the counsels as
disowning Petition as of July 19,
the of July 19, 2019
Petition 2019
1. Monico A. Yes Yes Yes
Abogado

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 27/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

2. Roberto M. Yes Yes Yes

Asiado
3. Larry Hugo Yes Yes Yes
4. Angelo Yes Yes Yes
Sadang
5. Nonelon Yes Yes
Balbontin
6. Salito Lagrosa No
7. Arzel Belidan Yes Yes Yes
8. Ronald Yes Yes Yes
Grandia
9. Troy Lagrosa No
10. Ronel Badilla Yes Yes
11. Archie No
Graciano
12. Regidor No Yes
Asiado
13. Ely Lopez No
14. Expedito Yes Yes Yes
Magdayao
15. Reny Yes Yes
Magbanua
16. Romulo Cana, No Yes
Jr.
17. Rogelio No
Hingpit
18. Jonel Hugo Yes Yes
19. Robert Valdez Yes Yes Yes
20. Rizen Galvan No Yes
21. Ricardo Yes Yes
Natural
22. Sanny Yes Yes
Belidan
23. Rowel P. Yes Yes
Ejona
24. Felix Ulzon Yes Yes Yes
25. Raffy M. Yes Yes Yes
Asiado
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 28/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

26. Primo M. Yes Yes Yes

Asiado
27. Adrian P. Yes Yes Yes
Abayan
28. Randy Yes Yes Yes
Dacumos
29. Danilo Yes Yes Yes
Belono
30. Romeo Yes Yes Yes
Malaguit
31. Dennis Bania Yes Yes Yes
32. Jason No
Villamor
33. Gary Castillos No
34. Alberto Sonio No
35. Dolie Dusong No
36. BJ Piring No
37. Jing Malinao Yes Yes Yes
38. Nilo Labrador Yes Yes Yes
39. Wilfredo Yes Yes Yes
Labandelo
40. Rolando Yes Yes
Labandelo
41. Integrated Bar Yes Yes
of the
Philippines

On July 19, 2019, petitioners' counsels requested to withdraw as counsels for

18 of the fisherfolk-petitioners, namely, Natural, Larry, Sanny, Ejona, Arzel
Belidan, Ronald Grandia, Ronel Badilla, Expedito Magdayao, Jonel Hugo,
Robert Valdez, Felix Ulzon, Raffy M. Asiado, Primo M. Asiado, Adrian P.
Abayan, Danilo Belono, Romeo Malaguit, Dennis Bania, and Jing Malinao, on
the ground that they were "on Pag-asa Island and the undersigned counsels
cannot travel to meet them there; or ... communicate with them as Philippine
telephone companies have no or very weak network coverage there."[107] As
for two (2) of the fisherfolk-petitioners in Zambales, they reasoned that
Labrador and Rolando have since moved away and did not leave any contact
details.[108]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 29/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court provides the rule on withdrawal of
counsels:

RULE 138
Attorneys and Admission to Bar
....

SECTION 26. Change of attorneys. — An attorney may retire at

any time from any action or special proceeding, by the written
consent of his client filed in court. He may also retire at any time
from an action or special proceeding, without the consent of his
client, should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on
hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of
substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be
entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and
written notice of the change shall be given to the adverse party.

A counsel may only be allowed to withdraw from the action either with the
written consent of the client or "from a good cause." In Orcino v. Gaspar:[109]

The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to
terminate the attorney-client relation at any time with or without
cause. The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation
other than for sufficient cause is, however, considerably restricted.
Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an
attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates
to carry it to its conclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon it
without reasonable cause. A lawyer's right to withdraw from a case
before its final adjudication arises only from the client's written
consent or from a good cause.[110]

Canon 22, Rule 22.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides the
"good causes" under which a counsel may withdraw without the written
conformity of the client:

CANON 22 — A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS

SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE
APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 30/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

Rule 22.01 A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the

following cases:

a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct

in connection with the matter he is handling;

b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative
of these canons and rules;

c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the
best interest of the client;

d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it

difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively;

e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services
or fails to comply with the retainer agreement;

f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and

g) Other similar cases.

Failure to contact the client despite diligent efforts is not considered under this
Rule as a "good cause" upon which a lawyer may withdraw from the case
without first seeking the client's written conformity. Had this Court granted the
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, 20 fisherfolk-petitioners would be left
without counsel to inquire if they were still pursuing the case.

Even if we were to apply liberality and consider the fisherfolk-petitioners'

affidavits disowning the Petition as their written conformity to counsels'
withdrawal, the other fisherfolk-petitioners who verified the Petition but
submitted no affidavit would have been left without any representation:

1. Ronel Badilla
2. Jonel Hugo
3. Ricardo Natural
4. Sanny Belidan
5. Rowel P. Ejona
6. Rolando Labandelo

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 31/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

To recall, petitioners' counsels filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Confer

with Clients and Obtain Special Authority,[111] citing as basis Rule 138,
Section 23 of the Rules of Court, which reads:

SECTION 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. — Attorneys

have authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in
relation thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all
matters of ordinary judicial procedure. But they cannot, without
special authority, compromise their client's litigation, or receive
anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash.

Counsels' filing of their Motion to Withdraw as Counsel without prior notice to

the clients is a violation of the very rule they sought to uphold. The Petition's
withdrawal compromises their clients' litigation, since the case will be
dismissed without their consent and without prior notice. In Natividad v.
Natividad:[112]

The cause of action, the claim or demand sued upon, and the
subject matter of the litigation are all within the exclusive control
of the client; and the attorney may not impair, compromise, settle,
surrender, or destroy them without his client's consent.[113]

Monteverde v. Court of Industrial Relations[114] likewise held:

The main issue is whether or not the Court of Industrial Relations

correctly dismissed the case for unfair labor practice after it had
rendered a decision dated March 21, 1968 on the motion of Atty.
Juan G. Sison, Jr., counsel of the petitioners, without inquiring into
the authority of the lawyer to ask for the dismissal of the case.

It was stated in the dissenting opinion of Judge Amando C.

Bugayong that nowhere in the minutes of the hearing of July 23,
1969 does it appear that the complainants have admitted in open
court that they had authorized their counsel, Atty. Juan G. Sison,
Jr., to enter into a settlement with the FIBISCO. All that is recorded
in the minutes is the request for the sending of a notice of hearing
to Atty. Juan G. Sison, Jr. both at his known address at Rm. 313 de
Leon Bldg., Rizal Avenue, Manila and at 745 Dos Castillas,
Sampaloc, Manila.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 32/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

It is elementary that lawyers "cannot, without special authority,

compromise their client's litigation, or receive anything in
discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash."

It is clear that the Court of Industrial Relations erred in dismissing

the case on the motion of Atty. Juan G. Sison, Jr. alone without
inquiring into his authority. The Court of Industrial Relations did
not even bother to find out what kind of settlement was entered into
between Atty. Juan G. Sison, Jr. and the FIBISCO.[115]

Thus, in Belandres vs. Lopez Sugar Central Mill Company, Inc.:[116]

"The broad implied or apparent powers of an attorney with respect

to the conduct or control of litigation are, however, limited to
matters which relate only to the procedure or remedy. The
employment of itself confers upon the attorney no implied or
apparent power or authority over the subject matter of the cause of
action or defense; and, unless the attorney has expressly been
granted authority with respect thereto, the power to deal with or
surrender these matters is regarded as remaining exclusively in the
client."

"The line of demarcation between the respective rights and powers

of an attorney and his client is clearly defined. The cause of action,
the claim or demand sued upon, and the subject matter of the
litigation are all within the exclusive control of a client; and an
attorney may not impair, compromise, settle, surrender, or destroy
them without his client's consent. But all the proceedings in court
to enforce the remedy to bring the claim, demand, cause of action,
or subject matter of the suit to hearing, trial, determination,
judgment, and execution, are within the exclusive control of the
attorney."[117]

To prevent compromising the interests of the remaining fisherfolk-petitioners,

this Court, instead of granting the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, required
counsels to exert more efforts in contacting their clients. In Mercado v.
Commission on Higher Education:[118]

The rule that the withdrawal of a counsel with the written

conformity of the client is immediately effective once filed in
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 33/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

court, however, is not absolute. When the counsel's impending

withdrawal with the written conformity of the client would leave
the latter with no legal representation in the case, it is an accepted
practice for courts to order the deferment of the effectivity of such
withdrawal until such time that it becomes certain that service of
court processes and other papers to the party-client would not
thereby be compromised — either by the due substitution of the
withdrawing counsel in the case or by the express assurance of the
party-client that he now undertakes to himself receive serviceable
processes and other papers. Adoption by courts of such a practice in
that particular context, while neither mandatory nor sanctioned by a
specific provision of the Rules of Court, is nevertheless justified as
part of their inherent power to see to it that the potency of judicial
processes and judgment are preserved.[119]

Petitioners' counsels had the responsibility, right at the start of their

engagement, to establish the modality of communication with their clients.
Mere difficulty in contacting the client is not a sufficient reason for his or her
counsel to abandon his or her cause, more so in this case where counsels are
rendering legal aid pro bono. Counsels should exert the same amount of
professionalism, regardless of their client's capacity to pay for their services.

Nonetheless, it would be unjust for this Court to compel the two (2) remaining
fisherfolk-petitioners, Sanny and Ejona, to continue with this case without
legal counsel. Petitioners' counsels have likewise manifested that they exerted
earnest attempts to contact them on their cellular phones but were unable to as
the two were no longer in Pag-asa Island. This Court also takes note of the six
(6) fisherfolk-petitioners' handwritten letter dated July 15, 2019, in which they
manifested their representation of the other members of the fisherfolk
association:

Bilang mga kinatawan ng samahan ng Fisherfolks ng Kalayaan at

upang patunayan ang kagustuhan ng nakararami, aming inilagda
ang aming mga pangalan ngayong araw na ito sa Lungsod ng Pto.
Princesa.[120] (Emphasis supplied)

For this reason, this Court considers the Petition withdrawn as to all fisherfolk-
petitioners. The case is considered dismissed, without passing upon any of the
substantive issues raised.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 34/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

WHEREFORE, the Motion to Withdraw the Petition is GRANTED. The

case is considered DISMISSED, without passing upon any of the substantive
issues raised.

In view of the unusual procedural developments of this case, counsels of

petitioners are STERNLY WARNED to be mindful of their duties and
obligations under the Code of Professional Responsibility and that the same or
similar infractions in the future shall be dealt with more severely by this Court.

SO ORDERED.

Bersamin, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, J. Reyes,

Jr., Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro Javier, Inting, and Zalameda, JJ., concur.
Carpio,* J., no part.
Peralta, J., See seperate opinion.
Jardeleza, J., See Separate opinion.

* No part per Resolution dated July 2, 2019.

[1] Rollo, pp. 836-846

[2] Id. at 875-891.

[3] Id. at 3-48.

[4]
Only 24 of 37 association members verified the Petition (Rollo, pp. 38-40).
Rowel was sometimes spelled Rowl in the rollo.

[5]In the Matter of the South Sea China Arbitration, PCA Case No. 2013-19,
July 12, 2016, https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-
CN-20160712-Award.pdf (last accessed on September 2, 2019).

[6] Rollo, p. 32.

[7] Id.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 35/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

[8] Id. at 227-229.

[9] Id. at 235-283.

[10] Id. at 243-244.

[11] Id. at 251-259.

[12] Id. at 259-260.

[13] Id. at 588-597.

[14]Oral arguments had initially been scheduled on June 25, 2019 but was later
reset to July 2, 2019 (rollo, p. 639).

[15] Rollo, pp. 621-626.

[16] Id. at 624.

[17] Id. at 770-A-770-E.

[18] Id. at 770-B-770-C.

[19] Id. at 771-777. This document was physically distributed by the Office of
the Solicitor General to the Court En Banc and to petitioners' counsels during
oral arguments.

[20] Id. at 808-A.

[21] Id. at 778-808.

[22] Id. at 803-804.

[23] Id. at 792-793.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 36/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

[24] Id. at 796-797.

[25] Id. at 800-801.

[26] Id. at 786.

[27] Id. at 805.

[28] Id. at 806.

[29] Id. at 807.

[30] Id. at 808.

[31] Id. at 779 and 781. The contents of both affidavits were the same.

[32] Id. at 784-785.

[33] Id. at 808-A-808-B.

[34] Id. at 808-C.

[35] Id. at 809-813.

[36] RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, sec. 23 provides:

SECTION 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. — Attorneys have

authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto
made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial
procedure. But they cannot, without special authority, compromise their
client's litigation, or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim but the
full amount in cash.

[37] Rollo, pp. 814-829.

[38] Id. at 816.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 37/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

[39] Id. at 817.

[40] Id. at 830-832.

[41] Id. at 831.

[42] Id. at 836-846.

[43] Id. at 838.

[44]Id. at 839. Counsels explained that lawyers of the Palawan Chapter were
able to meet with petitioner Ricardo Natural on July 14, 2019, but he did not
meet them on July 15, 2019 for the signing of the withdrawal letter.

[45] Id. at 840.

[46] Id. at 840-841.

[47] Id. at 840.

[48] Id. at 841 and 863.

[49] Id. at 842.

[50] Id. at 843-844.

[51] Id. at 865-867.

[52] Id. at 865-866.

[53] Considering that this Court declared a work suspension on August 2, 2019
and early dismissal of its employees on August 9, 2019, the last equitable day
for filing would be August 13, 2019.

[54] Rollo, pp. 872-874.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 38/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

[55] Id. at 873.

[56] Id. at 875-883.

[57] Id. at 877.

[58] Id.

[59] Id. at 878.

[60] Id. at 878 and 882.

[61] Id. at 889, Compliance with Motion, Annex "F."

[62] Id. at 879.

[63] Id. at 879.

[64] Id. at 879-880.

[65] Id. at 881.

[66] Id. at 879.

[67] Id. at 881-882.

[68] Id. at 882.

[69] A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, April 13, 2010.

[70] 752 Phil. 498 (2015) [Per J. Del Castillo, En Banc].

[71]Id. at 538-540 citing RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL CASES and The Rationale and Annotation to the Rules
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 39/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

of Procedure for Environmental Cases issued by the Supreme Court, pp. 78-
79 and 133.

[72]J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion in Arigo v. Swift, 743 Phil. 8, 94 (2014)

[Per J. Villarama, Jr., En Banc] citing The Rationale and Annotation to the
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, p. 133.

[73] RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 7,

sec. 1.

[74] See RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, sec. 1, which provides:

SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases,

the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or
superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider
all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying,
their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which
they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability
or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also
their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the
trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.

[75] Jison v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 138, 173 (1998) [Per J. Davide, Jr.,
First Division] citing 7 Vicente J. Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the
Philippines, Evidence (Part II, Rules 131-134), 2-4, 542-543 (1973).

[76]See Montemayor v. Bundalian, 453 Phil. 158 (2003) [Per J. Puno, Third
Division] citing Lorena v. Encomienda, 362 Phil. 248 (1999) [J. Panganiban,
Third Division] and Cortes v. Agcaoili, 355 Phil. (1998) [Per J. Panganiban,
En Banc].

[77]
Id. at 167 citing Enrique v. Court of Appeals, 299 Phil. 194 (1994) [Per J.
Quiason, En Banc].

[78] See RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, sec. 2, which provides:

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 40/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

SECTION 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the

accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable
doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof
as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty
only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.

[79] RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, sec. 2.

[80] See RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, sec. 1.

[81] See RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, sec. 2.

[82] See RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, sec, 3.

[83] See RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule

7, sec. 1.

[84] See RULES OF COURT, Rule 102, sec. 3.

[85] A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC (2007), sec. 2.

[86] A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC (2008), sec. 2.

[87] Paje v. Casiño, 752 Phil. 498, 539 (2015) [Per J. Del Castillo, En Banc].

[88] RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 7,

sec. 2.

[89] 784 Phil. 456 (2016) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].

[90] Id. at 480.

[91] 752 Phil. 498 (2015) [Per J. Del Castillo, En Banc].

[92] J. Leonen, Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in Paje v. Casiño, 752 Phil.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 41/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

498, 715 (2015) [Per J. Del Castillo, En Banc].

[93] Id.

[94]J. Leonen, Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in International Service for

the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast
Asia (Philippines), 774 Phil. 508, 721-722 (2015) [Per J. Villarama, En Banc].

[95]J. Leonen, Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in Paje v. Casiño, 752 Phil.
498, 714 (2015) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., En Banc].

[96]J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion in Arigo v. Swift, 743 Phil. 8, 71 (2014)

[Per J. Villarama, Jr., En Banc].

[97]Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. Province of Aklan, 689 Phil. 218, 271 (2012)
[Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, En Banc] citing The Rationale and Annotation to
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases p 45.

[98] 689 Phil. 218 (2012) [Per. J. Leonardo-De Castro, En Banc].

[99]Id. at 271-272 citing The Rationale and Annotation to the Rules of

Procedure for Environmental Cases, p. 76.

[100] See RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule

2, secs. 4 and 5. They provide:

SECTION 4. Who may file. — Any real party in interest, including the
government and juridical entities authorized by law, may file a civil action
involving the enforcement or violation of any environmental law.

SECTION 5. Citizen suit. — Any Filipino citizen in representation of others,

including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce
rights or obligations under environmental laws. Upon the filing of a citizen
suit, the court shall issue an order which shall contain a brief description of the
cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested parties to
manifest their interest to intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from
notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order once in a newspaper of a
general circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected barangays copies
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 42/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

of said order.

Citizen suits filed under R.A. No. 8749 and R.A. No, 9003 shall be governed
by their respective provisions.

[101]See Dolot v. Paje, 716 Phil. 458 [Per J. Reyes, En Banc]. See also
RULES OF COURT, Rule 65 and Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases, Rule 8.

[102] Id. at 472.

[103]Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. Province of Aklan, 689 Phil. 218, 272 (2012)
[Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, En Banc] citing The Rationale and Annotation to
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, p. 45.

[104] See J. Leonen, Dissenting Opinion in West Tower Condominium

Corporation v. First Philippine Industrial Corporation, 760 Phil. 304 (2015)
[Per J. Velasco, Jr., En Banc].

[105] Rollo, pp. 38-40.

[106] Id. at 778-808.

[107] Id. at 839.

[108] Id. at 840-841.

[109] 344 Phil. 792 (1997) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].

[110]Id. at 797-798 citing Rincoanda Telephone Company, Inc. v. Buenviaje,

263 Phil. 654 (1990) [Per J. Medialdea, First Division]; REVISED RULES OF
COURT, Rule 138, sec. 26(2); Martin, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 102
[1988]; Pineda, Legal and Judicial ethics, p. 266 [1994]; 7 C.J.S. 940; Dais v.
Garduño, 49 Phil. 165, 169 (1925) [Per J. Ostrand, En Banc]; Stork Country v.
Mishel, 173 N.W. 817, 820, 6 ALR 174 (1919); Agpalo, Legal Ethics, pp. 289-
290 (1992); CODE OF PROFESSIONAL Responsibility, Canon 22; and
CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS, Canon 44.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 43/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

[111] Rollo, pp. 809-813.

[112] 51 Phil. 613 (1928) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].

[113]Id. at 619 citing 6 C. J. pp. 643, 646-648, 76 Am. Dec. p. 259 and Holker
vs. Parker [1813], 7 Cranch, 436.

[114] 169 Phil. 253 (1977) [Per J. Fernandez, First Division].

[115] Id. at 256-257 citing REVISED RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, sec. 23.

[116] 97 Phil. 100 (1955) [Per J. Labrador, First Division].

[117] Id. at 104-105 citing 7 C. J. S. pp. 899-900 and 6 C. J. S., p. 643.

[118] 699 Phil. 419 (2012) [Per J.Perez, En Banc].

[119] Id. at 436.

[120] Rollo, p. 838.

SEPARATE OPINION

PERALTA, J.:

I agree that the motion for withdrawal of the Petition for the Issuance of The
Writ of Kalikasan and The Writ of Continuing Mandamus should be granted. I
must point out, however, that the petition should have been dismissed outright
due to procedural and substantive defects.

The petition for writ of kalikasan should have been dismissed outright for the
following reasons: (1) no judicial affidavits were attached to the petition to
support that claim that respondents omitted, failed and/or refused to enforce
Philippine Laws at the Panatag Shoal, the Ayungin Shoal, and the Panganiban

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 44/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

reef; (2) the foreign fishermen and other foreign entities who violated
Philippine environmental laws in the said shoals and reef, have not been
impleaded in the petition as respondents; and (3) the factual and evidentiary
issues raised must be referred to the Court of Appeals, for appropriate
resolution.

The petition for writ of continuing mandamus should, likewise, be dismissed

outright, because there is no clear allegation how respondents have failed or
have been remiss in performing their duties in enforcing environmental laws.
The petition should have been filed first with the Court of Appeals because
there are factual and evidentiary issues raised. Although the rules may or may
not allow a hearing, the allegations in the petition clearly show facts that have
to be established and proven, through judicial affidavits and memoranda.

The case of MMDA, et al. v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, etc., et al.[1]
is different from this case because the Court took judicial notice of the
pollution in Manila Bay, and the parties did not raise any contradictory facts.
Here, the Office of the Solicitor General disputes the allegations insofar as
respondents are being accused of malicious neglect in performing their official
duties under the law, rules or regulations.

Section 2, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases requires

that the verified petition for issuance of a writ of kalikasan should contain,
among other matters, all relevant and material evidence consisting of the
affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence, scientific and other expert
studies, and if possible, object evidence. Here, nothing in the Annexes attached
to the petition pertains to respondents' supposed omission, failure and/or
refusal to enforce Philippine Laws in Panatag Shoal, Ayungin Shoal, and
Panganiban reef.

During the oral arguments on July 2, 2019, counsel for petitioners admitted the
absence of judicial affidavits, and I explained the rationale for attaching such
affidavits to support a petition for writ of kalikasan, thus:

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA:

Some of the questions that I was thinking of asking you have
already been asked by Justice Leonen. So I will just ask you some
clarificatory questions. Number one is that there is an admission
from you that x x x there are no judicial affidavits or competent
evidence attached to your petition?
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 45/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

ATTY. PALACIOS:
Yes, Your Honor, we're invoking the rule of the Rules of Court on
mandatory judicial notice where the Court will take judicial notice
without the requirement of submission of evidence, Your Honor.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA:

But it is clear from the special rule that the petition must be
accompanied by judicial affidavits. The reason why we require
that is that, in all writs of kalikasan when we were preparing,
when we were drafting this rule, all the issues that will be
raised are factual. That's why we require the submission of
judicial affidavit and competent evidence. Now[,] if the facts that
you alleged are disputed by the Solicitor General, can we resolve
your petition? Just merely saying that we are, you are using the
evidence submitted in the arbitral proceedings pertaining to the acts
allegedly committed in the years 2012, 2013 and 2014?

ATTY. PALACIOS:
Well, yes, Your Honor. The Court may want to look at those
submissions by the executive branch which actually are matters of
mandatory judicial notice and..... (interrupted)

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA:

The reason why we require judicial affidavit is that x x x the
opposing party can cross-examine the person who alleged that
an illegal act was committed. Without the judicial affidavit,
which will now be the direct testimony of the witness, we
cannot test the credibility of the affiant[,] because as I've said a
while ago, we anticipated that all writs of kalikasan will involve
factual issues because you just look at the elements, acts
complained of, you have to establish what are the acts
complained of, and then, the respondent, in their answer or in
the return of the writ must likewise submit judicial affidavits
and then indicate their defenses. So how can we resolve this
petition without the judicial affidavits on the part of the
petitioners[,] and also judicial affidavits — on the part of the
respondents?

ATTY. PALACIOS:
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 46/53
8/28/23, 9:33 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

Yes, Your Honor. I think this case presents a unique opportunity for
the Court to examine the situation where there are x x x essential
facts which can support the grant.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA:

Yeah, to me that's my problem. Because what you are saying is that
the facts are not disputed.[2]

During the oral arguments, petitioner also implied that they did not implead as
respondents the indispensable parties, namely, the foreign fishermen and other
foreign entities who violated Philippine environmental laws in the said shoals
and reef, thus:

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA:

My other concern is this. The acts complained of not only against
the public officials, but also other persons because you have to
implead the other persons who are violating our environmental
law, to me, these are indispensable parties. If we issue a
privilege of writ of kalikasan, would it be sufficient just to
address them to the public official. Is it not that we have also to
address those who are violating, those who are violating our
environmental rights?

ATTY. PALACIOS:
We believe, Your Honor, that we have impleaded the necessary
parties for this case. And that we do not have to implead the
private individuals who violated the Philippine environmental laws,
they, Your Honor, are subject of criminal or administrative
prosecution by the respondents.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA:

Probably, that will fall on x x x continuing mandamus. The writ of
kalikasan is to stop the parties from violating our environment.
If it's the public official that is violating our environmental
right, then, it can be the subject of the writ of kalikasan because
the respondents here are public officials.

ATTY. PALACIOS:
Yes, Your Honor.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 47/53
8/28/23, 9:34 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA:

Who are supposed to enforce our environmental laws, sa
continuing mandamus iyan.

ATTY. PALACIOS:
Yes, Your Honor.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA:

The writ of kalikasan is actually addressed to those who are
violating[,] not to those who do not enforce the environmental
law[.] [T]hat is why, probably, you filed two petitions in one
petition. You put writ of kalikasan and writ of mandamus because
if the writ of kalikasan is not proper then probably writ of
mandamus will substitute[,] or will be the alternative resolution to
your petitions, is it not?

ATTY. PALACIOS:
Yes, Your Honor, if I may respond, we are looking at the rules of
writ of kalikasan, Rule 7[,] and in the section on the reliefs
available to the parties[,] one of the reliefs, number one, the first
relief that's available to the parties is a directive from the Court for
the violator to cease and desist from the unlawful neglect of their
duty, Your Honor.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA:

Because you know, Counsel, if we issue the privilege of the writ,
and therefore, we will tell those who violate the rule against whom
will the writ be issued?

ATTY. PALACIOS:
Your Honor.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA:

There are no respondents who are supposed to be the violators.

ATTY. PALACIOS:
Yes, Your Honor.... (interrupted)

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA:

As simple as this, you have a company violating our environmental
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 48/53
8/28/23, 9:34 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

law, alright? And probably [emitting obnoxious,] or something that

is obnoxious, and therefore, violation of our environmental law.
Here comes a company. The writ will be issued against the
company that's violating the environmental law. Here, you want a
writ of kalikasan to be issued against the public official. The public
official is not violating our environmental law. According to you[,]
they are neglecting their duties to enforce the environmental law.

ATTY. PALACIOS:
Yes, Your Honor.[3]

The petition for writ of continuing mandamus should also be dismissed

outright, because there is no clear allegation and judicial affidavits to show
how respondents have failed or have been remiss in performing their duties in
enforcing environmental laws. During the oral arguments, I discussed the
nature of omission on the part of a public official to warrant the issuance of
such writ of mandamus, the need for judicial affidavits and the factual and
evidentiary nature of issues involved in a writ of kalikasan proceeding, thus:

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA:

Okay, now let us go to continuing mandamus. The law is very clear
[...] unlawfully neglects his duty. We anticipated when we
[were] drafting these rules[,] that if we do not place unlawfully
neglects then mere negligence, the public official will be the
subject matter of the continuing mandamus. Because there is
[a] difference between mere negligence and unlawfully
neglecting his duties. So can you [see] based [on] your evidence
that the public officials are unlawfully neglecting their duties in
enforcing environmental law. There is no judicial affidavit to
prove that in the petition. So what shall we do? I think the law is
very clear. Unlawfully neglect is not a mere negligence. So that
the respondents could have also submitted their evidence to
show that probably there is negligence but they did not
unlawfully neglect their duties. That's why you know, we
anticipated that all of these x x x, may involve factual issues
that's why we required that these cases should also be brought
to the Court of Appeals because the Court of Appeals is a Court
where it can receive evidence[,] not the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court was only included there because we do not divest
the Supreme Court of jurisdiction of any case that may be brought
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 49/53
8/28/23, 9:34 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

before any other court. That's why the Supreme Court is included
there as a forum over which the petition may be filed. But the
issues are factual[.] [W]e do not [...] we cannot receive evidence
here and require the parties to testify here, and then, cross-examine.

ATTY. PALACIOS:
Yes, Your Honor.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PERALTA:

And then, because of the urgency, we require that this petition
should be resolved within sixty (60) days. I hope the Solicitor
General will not dispute the facts as you have stated a while ago.
Because the moment that they will dispute the facts, who will now
resolve [...] [t]hat the evidence of the petitioners is more credible
than the evidence of the Solicitor General [?] Who will now resolve
it?

ATTY. PALACIOS:
Yes, Your Honor.[4]

All told, while I agree with the grant of the Motion to Withdraw the Petition
for the Issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan and of the Writ of Continuing
Mandamus, I also submit the foregoing observations as to the proper recourse
in light of the procedural and substantive defects of the Petition.

[1] 595 Phil. 305 (2008).

[2] TSN, Oral Arguments, July 2, 2019, pp. 52-53. (Emphasis added)

[3] Id. at 55-57. (Emphasis added)

[4] Id. at 57-58. (Emphasis added)

SEPARATE OPINION

JARDELEZA, J.:
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 50/53
8/28/23, 9:34 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

Petitioners come to this Court seeking, the issuance of writs of kalikasan and
continuing mandamus against agencies of the Philippine government. They
claim, among their causes of action, violations by China of environmental law
within the Philippine exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Petitioners invoke
factual findings made by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Award it issued in PCA
Case No. 2013-19, entitled "Republic of the Philippines v. The People's
Republic of China," a case filed by the Philippine Government concerning the
interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS).

The Arbitral Award is an undeniably unanimous,[1] historic, and sweeping

victory,[2] not only for the government but also for the Filipino people. It has
become an enduring part of international law, clarifying, as it did, important
aspects of the UNCLOS, such as the nature of the maritime entitlements
provided therein and the limits of their lawful exercise. Unfortunately,
however, there is no international law enforcer or sheriff who can compel
China to comply with the Arbitral Award. Such is a limitation of international
law which makes enforcement of international law obligations, in general, and
international awards, much like the one issued in our country's favor, in
particular, a genuine challenge.

There are nevertheless a number of ways by which one can attempt to enforce
international law obligations.[3] It is my view that the case brought before Us
now is an attempt on the part of petitioners to enforce compliance with the
Arbitral Award, this time, through the use of domestic environmental laws.
Specifically, petitioners, on the strength of the findings of violations of
environmental laws within the Philippine's EEZ as set forth in the arbitral
award,[4] seek the issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus to
enjoin respondents-government agencies to comply with their duties to protect
and preserve the marine environment, as allegedly provided under the
provisions of Republic Act No. 8550, or the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998,
as amended.[5]

As it turns out, petitioners decided to withdraw the action they filed. I concur
with the majority in granting the motion to withdraw petition and considering
the case dismissed without passing upon any of the issues raised.[6]

I submit this Opinion, however, to remind that the ponencia's pronouncement

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 51/53
8/28/23, 9:34 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

that "[b]efore any private parties or public interest groups proceed with the
case, they must already be ready with the evidence necessary for the
determination of [the writ's] issuance"[7] should be read in light of the Court's
ruling in Gios-Samar, Inc. v. Department of Transportation and
Communication.[8]

While the Court shares original and concurrent jurisdiction with the Courc of
Appeals (over actions seeking the issuance of writs of kalikasan and
continuing mandamus) and the Regional Trial Courts (for petitions for writs of
continuing mandamus only), petitioners must still observe the rule on
hierarchy of courts and seek immediate resort with this Court only to resolve
pure questions of law. As this case demonstrates, a proceeding for the issuance
of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus necessarily involves the
evaluation of evidence and resolution of factual questions which this Court is
not wont to undertake. To reiterate, this Court is not a trier of facts. We are
unsuited to receive and evaluate evidence in the first instance; these are the
primary functions of the lower courts or regulatory agencies. Thus, and unless
the questions involved are purely legal in nature, the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts should be observed. To my mind, due process considerations, at the
very least, demand that such matters be first and fully presented before a trier
of fact, fully equipped to receive and evaluate evidence in the first instance.

[1] See Permanent Court Arbitration Press Release, July 12, 2016
<https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1801> (visited July 9, 2019); Panda,
International Court Issues Unanimous Award in Philippines v. China Case on
South China Sea, July 12,- 2016
<https://thediplomat.com/2016/07/international-court-issues-unanimous-
award-in-philippines-v-china-case-on-south-china-sea/> (visited July 9, 2019).

[2] See Perlez, Tribunal Rejects Beijing's Claims in South China Sea, July 12,
2016 <https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/world/asia/south-china-sea-
hague-ruling-philippines.html> (visited July 9, 2019); Graham, The Hague
Tribunal's South China Sea Ruling: Empty Provocation or Slow-Burning
Influence? August 18, 2016
<https://www.cfr.org/councilofcouncils/global_memos/p38227> (visited July
9, 2019).

[3] Legal remedies may include (1) filing by affected States of a case with the
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 52/53
8/28/23, 9:34 PM [ G.R. No. 246209. September 03, 2019 ]

International Court of Justice (ICJ) or under other modes of dispute settlement

provided in any or all of the erring State's treaty obligations (such as in this
case, UNCLOS), (2) invocation, through diplomatic action or other peaceful
means, of the responsibility of another State for an injury caused by an
internationally wrongful act to a natural or legal person that is a national of
that State (see Art. 1, Part 1, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, 2006),
and (3) those provided under human rights mechanisms before regional courts
such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the African Court,
among others.

[4]
Petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan and the writ of continuing
mandamus, p. 5.

[5] Id.

[6] Ponencia, p. 30.

[7] Id. at 18.

[8] G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: June 08, 2023

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 53/53