Villaruz, April Thea, D.

LLB 2-D

Natural Resources and Environmental Law

Case Digests

1. FILINVEST vs. IAC,

G.R. No. L-65935, September 30, 1988
Facts:
Nestor Sunga Jr., a businessman, purchased a passenger
minibus at Motor Center Inc., Calasiao, Pangasinan on March 21,
1978. He executed a promissory note, covering the amount of P62,592
payable in the amount of P2,608 for two years and a chattel mortgage
in favor of Motor Center, assigned to Filinvest Credit Corporation.
The minibus was later seized by employees of Filinvest because he
was delinquent of his payments, but was recovered after they have
verified that Sungas accounts were in order. Sunga filed for damages
against Filinvest and won in the Trial court ordering filinvest to pay
P30,000 in moral damages. Filinvest appealed to the IAC which then
affirmed the prior judgment and increased the damages to P50,000.
Filinvest contends that the assignment of damages was exaggerated
and unconscionable.
Issue:
Whether or not the amount of damages assigned by the IAC was
extravagant
Held:
Yes, the amount assigned as damages by the IAC was
extravagant, even if the respondent is entitled to moral damages. The
Court found that the award of P30,000, later P50,000, in moral
damages is excessive and emphasized that damages are not obtained
to enrich the complainant at the expense of the defendant. It only
serves to alleviate the moral sufferings the defendant has gone
through and must be proportionate to such suffering.
"To guard against the award of exorbitant damages that are way out
of proportion to the environmental circumstances of a case and which
time and again, this Court has reduced or eliminated. Judicial
discretion granted to the courts in the assessment of damages must
always be exercised with balanced restraint and measured
objectivity."
2. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. CA,

G.R. No. 110120, March 16, 1994

Facts:
On December 5, 1991, The Laguna Lake Development Authority
issued a cease-and-desist order against the City Government of
Caloocan, prohibiting them from operating a dumpsite on Camarin,
Caloocan. The LLDA investigated on the matter and found out that
the City Government of Caloocan operated the dumpsite without the
required certification from the DENR and that the waste
contaminated the water in the area. The City Government complied
but on August 1992, operations resumed. The LLDA enforced the
order by prohibiting the entry of garbage trucks in the dumpsite. The
City of Caloocan filed an action with the RTC to nullify said order,
contending that it is the sole authority in the area to promote health
and safety and that the LLDA has no authority to issue said order.
The RTC ruled in favor of the City government. The CA set aside both
the injunction against LLDA and the cease-and-desist order against
the City Government.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the LLDA has the power to issue cease-anddesist orders against the City Government
Held:
Yes. The Court ruled that the LLDA is authorized under RA
4850, as amended by PD 813 to make, alter, or modify orders
requiring the discontinuance of pollution. The LLDA is specifically
mandated by RA 4850 to carry out the policy of promoting and
accelerating development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake
region. Its charter, RA 4850 allows it to have broad powers in the
regulation of projects in the Laguna Lake region. It is a proper
exercise of its power to give cease-and-desist orders, as was done
against the City Government of Caloocan in this case.
3. AGAPITO MAGBANUA, et. Al., vs. IAC,
G.R. Nos. L-66870-72, June 29, 1985
Facts:
The petitioners are allegedly share tenants of the private
respondents. They filed an action against the respondents
complaining that the respondents diverted the flow of water to their
farms, rendering them dry, causing them great damage and prejudice.
The trial court found the respondents liable and ordered them to pay
the petitioners P10,000 each for damages, maintain said petitioners
as agricultural lessees, and prohibited them from disrupting the flow
of water to the farms. Upon appeal, the IAC removed the damages.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to moral and
exemplary damages
Held:

Yes. The Court ruled that the petitioners are entitled to damages
under Art. 2219 of the Civil Code which permits the award of moral
damages to a person who suffers loss or injury in manner contrary to
moral, good customs, or public policy. In this case the respondents
denied irrigation to the petitioners in order for them to vacate their
landholdings, and caused them prejudice. They are also entitled to
exemplary damages because the respondents acted in an oppressive
manner.
4. OPOSA et. al., vs. FACTORAN, JR.,
G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
Facts:
The petitioners, all minors represented by their parents, filed a
class taxpayers suit against the Secretary of the DENR to cancel all
timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from
receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, and approving new timber
licenses. The petitioners asserted that they as citizens, are entitled to
the full use, benefit, and enjoyment, of the countrys virgin tropical
forests and that deforestation has adverse consequences to the
environment. They also asserted that they represent not only
themselves, but their generation and the generations yet unborn. The
respondent Secretary moved to dismiss the complaint, contending
that they have no cause of action against him. The trial court moved
to dismiss the complaint, having no cause of action and that it would
impair contracts. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioners
contended that they have cause of action because they have to
safeguard their right to a sound environment, and right to a healthful
and balanced ecology.
Issue/s:
1. Whether the class suit is valid
2. Whether or not the petitioners have a cause of action
Held:
Yes. The Court ruled that class suit is valid because the
petitioners are numerous and representative enough to ensure the
full protection of all concerned. The Court also ruled that the
petitioners can represent their generation and the succeeding
generations based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility,
which states that every generation has a responsibility to the next to
preserve the rhythm and harmony of nature for the full enjoyment of
a healthful and balanced ecology to protect the rights of the next
generations enjoy the same.
Yes. The Court disagreed with the trial court that the petitioners
have no cause of action against the Secretary of Environment and
Natural Resources. It ruled that the right to a healthful and balanced
ecology, though not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it belongs to a
different set of rights that is concerned with self-preservation. To
conform to this right the DENR was mandated with the conservation,
management, and proper use of the countrys natural resources. It is

the duty of said Department to protect this right, thus, there is a cause
of action when this right is denied or violated.
5. RODRIGUEZvs. IAC
G.R. No. 74816, March 17, 1987
Facts:
Daytona Construction and Development Corporation
manufactures road and concrete building materials and cement
located in Marcos Avenue, Quezon City. The petitioners, who reside
nearby, filed an action for abatement of public nuisance with
damagesagainst the private respondents, because the effluence of the
plant causes property damage and illness. The private respondent
moved to dismiss the action for having no cause of action and the trial
court having no jurisdiction. Said motion was denied. Without filing
an answer, the trial court declared the private respondent in default
and ruled to close the cement plant and to pay damages to the
petitioners. The respondents filed a petition for injunction against the
execution of said judgement, but was denied by the IAC and the
Supreme Court. They instead appealed to the IAC contending that the
trial court should not have executed the judgment pending appeal.
The IAC reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the
case back to them.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the trial court may execute the judgment
pending appeal.
Held:
Yes. The Court ruled that the trial court had good reasons to
issue the order of execution pending appeal. There was a need to stop
and close the cement plant because it was injurious to the health and
property of the neighborhood where the plant is located and that its
operation causes serious discomfort to them, violates their rights and
causes them damage. The evidence presented by the plaintiffs clearly
establishes the need for the trial court to execute the judgment.
6. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS, INC., vs. CA
G.R. No. 94759, January 21, 1991
Facts:
Petitioner Technology Developers Inc. is a corporation who
manufactures charcoal briquette. They received a letter from Pablo
Cruz, the acting mayor of Sta. Maria Bulacan ordering them to cease
operations and to bring to his office a Building Permit, an AntiPollution Permit and other documents. Lacking a Mayors Permit,
when inspected, the acting mayor had the plant padlocked, stopping
their operations. They for mandamus and preliminary injunction
against the respondent mayor which was granted by the lower court.
In a motion for reconsideration by the respondent mayor, evidence
was presented showing that the by-products from manufacturing
process done in the plant are hazardous to peoples health. The lower

court then set aside its prior orderand dissolved the writ of
injunction. The petitioner was denied by the CA upon appeal.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the acting mayor can close down the petitioners
plant
Held:
Yes. The Court ruled that the mayor of a town has a
responsibility to protect his towns inhabitants from pollution, even
though the Environmental Management Bureau of the DENR is the
agency that determines whether the pollution requires control or
prohibition of a business operation. A mayor may deny the
application of a permit to operate a business by virtue of his police
power unless the business takes measures to control pollution
resulting from his business operations. In this case, the acting mayor
called on the petitioner to produce permits after receiving complaints
from his towns residents about the emissions from the plant and
closed the plant after he found out that the plant had no proper air
pollution device installed.
7. HERNANDEZ VS. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION
G.R. No. 145328, March 23, 2006
Facts:
In 1996, the NAPOCOR began constructing 29 steel poles or
towers for its high-tension cables in the Sucat-Araneta-Balintawak
Transmission Project. The line passes through South Superhighway,
Fort Bonifacio, and Dasmarinas Village. The petitioners, who live in
Dasmarinas Village, were alarmed by the sight of the steel towers.
They learned, from the internet, electromagnetic fields from these
structures cause adverse health effects. They aired their concerns with
the NAPOCOR and with the House Committee on Energy. The
NAPOCOR came up with four options for the problem: 1. Transfer the
Line to Lawton Ave., 2. Maintain a 12 meter distance from the
village., 3. Construct an underground line., 4. Reroute along C-5 and
South Luzon Expressway. Reaching an impasse, the petitioners filed
an action against NAPOCOR. The trial court temporarily restrained
the NAPOCOR from energizing the power lines and enjoined them
until there is final judgment. The CA set aside the order on the
ground of proscription on injunctions against infrastructure projects
according to PD 1818. Upon appeal, the petitioners contended that
PD 1818 was not construed to apply in cases of extreme urgency such
as their right to health and safety.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the trial court may enjoin the construction of
the steel towers, notwithstanding PD 1818
Held:

Yes. The Court ruled that while PD 1818 prohibits courts from
issuing restraining orders and injunctions against infrastructure
projects, it is construed as such in order not to disrupt the projects or
frustrate economic development, but not to disregard the
fundamental right to health, safety and well-being. In this case, the
trial court is vested with the jurisdiction to issue a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary injunction because if the
NAPOCOR was not enjoined, the rights of the petitioners to health
will be violated and endanger their lives.
8. LEGASPI vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-72119, May 29, 1987
Facts:
Petitioner Valentin Legaspi requested to the Civil Service
Commission information on the civil service eligibilities of Julian
Sibonghanoy, and Mariano Agas, government employees employed as
sanitarians in the Health Department of Cebu City. He claimed that
he was entitled to such information as a constitutional right. The
respondent commission denied his request. The petitioner then filed
for mandamus to compel the Civil Service Commission to comply
with his request. The respondent, however contended that Legaspi
had no actual interest and no clear legal right to secure the particular
information.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the petitioner has the right to access
information on civil service eligibilities of the sanitarians
Held:
Yes. The Court ruled that Legaspi can access information on the
civil service eligibilities of the sanitarians because it is matter of
public concern and as such is covered by the right to information. The
Constitution mandates the State and its agents to afford full
disclosure of all its information involving public interest or concern.
In this case, the eligibility of the sanitarians is of public concern
becauseit is the legitimate concern of citizens to ensure that
government positions requiring civil service eligibility are occupied
only by eligible persons.