TodayisWednesday,October19,2016

Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.199199August27,2013
MARICRISD.DOLOT,CHAIRMANOFTHEBAGONGALYANSANGMAKABAYANSORSOGON,PETITIONER
vs.
HON.RAMONPAJE,INHISCAPACITYASTHESECRETARYOFTHEDEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTAND
NATURALRESOURCES,REYNULFOA.JUAN,REGIONALDIRECTOR,MINESANDGEOSCIENCESBUREAU,
DENR,HON.RAULR.LEE,GOVERNOR,PROVINCEOFSORSOGON,ANTONIOC.OCAMPO,JR.,VICTORIA
A.AJERO,ALFREDOM.AGUILAR,ANDJUANM.AGUILAR,ANTONESENTERPRISES,GLOBALSUMMIT
MINESDEV'TCORP.,ANDTRORE,RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
REYES,J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Order2 dated
September 16, 2011 and Resolution3 dated October 18, 2011 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Sorsogon, Branch 53. The assailed issuances dismissed Civil Case No. 20118338 for Continuing Mandamus,
DamagesandAttorneysFeeswithPrayerfortheIssuanceofaTemporaryEnvironmentProtectionOrder.
AntecedentFacts
On September 15, 2011, petitioner Maricris D. Dolot (Dolot), together with the parish priest of the Holy Infant
Jesus Parish and the officers of Alyansa Laban sa Mina sa Matnog (petitioners), filed a petition for continuing
mandamus,damagesandattorneysfeeswiththeRTCofSorsogon,docketedasCivilCaseNo.20118338.4The
petition contained the following pertinent allegations: (1) sometime in 2009, they protested the iron ore mining
operationsbeingconductedbyAntonesEnterprises,GlobalSummitMinesDevelopmentCorporationandTROre
inBarangaysBalocaweandBonotDaco,locatedintheMunicipalityofMatnog,tonoavail(2)Matnogislocated
inthesoutherntipofLuzonandthereisaneedtoprotect,preserveandmaintainthegeologicalfoundationofthe
municipality(3)Matnogissusceptibletofloodingandlandslides,andconfrontedwiththeenvironmentaldangers
offloodhazard,liquefaction,groundsettlement,groundsubsidenceandlandslidehazard(4)afterinvestigation,
theylearnedthattheminingoperatorsdidnothavetherequiredpermittooperate(5)SorsogonGovernorRaul
LeeandhispredecessorSallyLeeissuedtotheoperatorsasmallscaleminingpermit,whichtheydidnothave
authority to issue (6) the representatives of the Presidential Management Staff and the Department of
EnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR),despiteknowledge,didnotdoanythingtoprotecttheinterestofthe
people of Matnog5 and (7) the respondents violated Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7076 or the Peoples SmallScale
MiningActof1991,R.A.No.7942orthePhilippineMiningActof1995,andtheLocalGovernmentCode.6Thus,
theyprayedforthefollowingreliefs:(1)theissuanceofawritcommandingtherespondentstoimmediatelystop
theminingoperationsintheMunicipalityofMatnog(2)theissuanceofatemporaryenvironmentprotectionorder
orTEPO(3)thecreationofaninteragencygrouptoundertaketherehabilitationoftheminingsite(4)awardof
damagesand(5)returnoftheironore,amongothers.7
The case was referred by the Executive Judge to the RTC of Sorsogon, Branch 53 being the designated
environmentalcourt.8 In the Order9 dated September 16, 2011, the case was summarily dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
ThepetitionersfiledamotionforreconsiderationbutitwasdeniedintheResolution10datedOctober18,2011.
Asidefromsustainingthedismissalofthecaseforlackofjurisdiction,theRTC11furtherruledthat:(1)therewas
nofinalcourtdecree,orderordecisionyetthatthepublicofficialsallegedlyfailedtoacton,whichisacondition
fortheissuanceofthewritofcontinuingmandamus(2)thecasewasprematurelyfiledasthepetitionerstherein
failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and (3) they also failed to attach judicial affidavits and furnish a
copyofthecomplainttothegovernmentorappropriateagency,asrequiredbytherules.12

PetitionerDolotwentstraighttothisCourtonpurequestionsoflaw.
Issues
ThemainissueinthiscaseiswhethertheRTCBranch53hasjurisdictiontoresolveCivilCaseNo.20118338.
Theotherissueiswhetherthepetitionisdismissibleonthegroundsthat:(1)thereisnofinalcourtdecree,order
or decision that the public officials allegedly failed to act on (2) the case was prematurely filed for failure to
exhaustadministrativeremediesand(3)thepetitionersfailedtoattachjudicialaffidavitsandfurnishacopyofthe
complainttothegovernmentorappropriateagency.
RulingoftheCourt
JurisdictionandVenue
Indismissingthepetitionforlackofjurisdiction,theRTC,initsOrderdatedSeptember16,2011,apparentlyrelied
onSCAdministrativeOrder(A.O.)No.7definingtheterritorialareasoftheRegionalTrialCourtsinRegions1to
12,andAdministrativeCircular(Admin.Circular)No.232008,13designatingtheenvironmentalcourts"totryand
decideviolationsofenvironmentallawsxxxcommittedwithintheirrespectiveterritorialjurisdictions."14 Thus, it
ruled that its territorial jurisdiction was limited within the boundaries of Sorsogon City and the neighboring
municipalities of Donsol, Pilar, Castilla, Casiguran and Juban and that it was "bereft of jurisdiction to entertain,
hearanddecide[the]case,assuchauthorityrestsbeforeanothercoequalcourt."15
Suchreasoningisplainlyerroneous.TheRTCcannotsolelyrelyonSCA.O.No.7andAdmin.CircularNo.23
2008andconfineitselfwithinitsfourcornersindeterminingwhetherithadjurisdictionovertheactionfiledbythe
petitioners.
Noneismorewellsettledthantherulethatjurisdiction,whichisthepowerandauthorityofthecourttohear,try
anddecideacase,isconferredbylaw.16Itmayeitherbeoverthenatureoftheaction,overthesubjectmatter,
over the person of the defendants or over the issues framed in the pleadings.17 By virtue of Batas Pambansa
(B.P.) Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari,
prohibitionandmandamusisvestedintheRTC.Particularly,Section21(1)thereofprovidesthattheRTCsshall
exerciseoriginaljurisdiction
in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which
maybeenforcedinanypartoftheirrespectiveregions.(Emphasisours)
A.O.No.7andAdmin.CircularNo.232008wasissuedpursuanttoSection18ofB.P.Blg.129,whichgavethe
Court authority to define the territory over which a branch of the RTC shall exercise its authority. These
administrative orders and circulars issued by the Court merely provide for the venue where an action may be
filed. The Court does not have the power to confer jurisdiction on any court or tribunal as the allocation of
jurisdiction is lodged solely in Congress.18 It also cannot be delegated to another office or agency of the
Government.19Section18ofB.P.Blg.129,infact,explicitlystatesthattheterritorythusdefinedshallbedeemed
tobetheterritorialareaofthebranchconcernedforpurposesofdeterminingthevenueofallsuits,proceedings
oractions.ItwasalsoclarifiedinOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorv.JudgeMatas20that
AdministrativeOrderNo.3[definingtheterritorialjurisdictionoftheRegionalTrialCourtsintheNationalCapital
Judicial Region] and, in like manner, Circular Nos. 13 and 19, did not per se confer jurisdiction on the covered
regional trial courts or its branches, such that nonobservance thereof would nullify their judicial acts. The
administrative order merely defines the limits of the administrative area within which a branch of the court may
exerciseitsauthoritypursuanttothejurisdictionconferredbyBatasPambansaBlg.129.21
TheRTCneednotberemindedthatvenuerelatesonlytotheplaceoftrialorthegeographicallocationinwhich
anactionorproceedingshouldbebroughtanddoesnotequatetothejurisdictionofthecourt.Itisintendedto
accord convenience to the parties, as it relates to the place of trial, and does not restrict their access to the
courts.22Consequently,theRTCsmotupropriodismissalofCivilCaseNo.20118338onthegroundoflackof
jurisdictionispatentlyincorrect.
Atmost,theerrorcommittedbythepetitionersinfilingthecasewiththeRTCofSorsogonwasthatofimproper
venue.A.M.No.0968SCortheRulesofProcedureforEnvironmentalCases(Rules)specificallystatesthata
specialcivilactionforcontinuingmandamusshallbefiledwiththe"[RTC]exercisingjurisdictionovertheterritory
where the actionable neglect or omission occurred x x x."23 In this case, it appears that the alleged actionable
neglectoromissionoccurredintheMunicipalityofMatnogandassuch,thepetitionshouldhavebeenfiledinthe
RTCofIrosin.24Buteventhen,itdoesnotwarranttheoutrightdismissalofthepetitionbytheRTCasvenuemay
bewaived.25 Moreover, the action filed by the petitioners is not criminal in nature where venue is an essential
element of jurisdiction.26 In GomezCastillo v. Commission on Elections,27 the Court even expressed that what

theRTCshouldhavedoneunderthecircumstanceswastotransferthecase(anelectionprotest)totheproper
branch.Similarly,itwouldservethehigherinterestofjustice28 if the Court orders the transfer of Civil Case No.
2011 8338 to the RTC of Irosin for proper and speedy resolution, with the RTC applying the Rules in its
dispositionofthecase.
At this juncture, the Court affirms the continuing applicability of Admin. Circular No. 232008 constituting the
different "green courts" in the country and setting the administrative guidelines in the raffle and disposition of
environmental cases. While the designation and guidelines were made in 2008, the same should operate in
conjunctionwiththeRules.
A.M.No.0968SC:RulesofProcedureforEnvironmentalCases
InitsResolutiondatedOctober18,2011,whichresolvedthepetitionersmotionforreconsiderationoftheorderof
dismissal, the RTC further ruled that the petition was dismissible on the following grounds: (1) there is no final
courtdecree,orderordecisionyetthatthepublicofficialsallegedlyfailedtoacton(2)thecasewasprematurely
filedforfailuretoexhaustadministrativeremediesand(3)therewasfailuretoattachjudicialaffidavitsandfurnish
acopyofthecomplainttothegovernmentorappropriateagency.29Therespondents,andeventheOfficeofthe
SolicitorGeneral,inbehalfofthepublicrespondents,allconcurwiththeviewoftheRTC.
The concept of continuing mandamus was first introduced in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v.
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay.30 Now cast in stone under Rule 8 of the Rules, the writ of continuing
mandamus enjoys a distinct procedure than that of ordinary civil actions for the enforcement/violation of
environmentallaws,whicharecoveredbyPartII(CivilProcedure).SimilartotheprocedureunderRule65ofthe
Rules of Court for special civil actions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules
requiresthatthepetitionfiledshouldbesufficientinformandsubstancebeforeacourtmaytakefurtheraction
otherwise,thecourtmaydismissthepetitionoutright.Courtsmustbecautioned,however,thatthedetermination
to give due course to the petition or dismiss it outright is an exercise of discretion that must be applied in a
reasonablemannerinconsonancewiththespiritofthelawandalwayswiththeviewinmindofseeingtoitthat
justiceisserved.31
SufficiencyinformandsubstancereferstothecontentsofthepetitionfiledunderRule8,Section1:
Whenanyagencyorinstrumentalityofthegovernmentorofficerthereofunlawfullyneglectstheperformanceof
anactwhichthelawspecificallyenjoinsasadutyresultingfromanoffice,trustorstationinconnectionwiththe
enforcement or violation of an environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein, or unlawfully excludes
anotherfromtheuseorenjoymentofsuchrightandthereisnootherplain,speedyandadequateremedyinthe
ordinarycourseoflaw,thepersonaggrievedtherebymayfileaverifiedpetitioninthepropercourt,allegingthe
factswithcertainty,attachingtheretosupportingevidence,specifyingthatthepetitionconcernsanenvironmental
law,ruleorregulation,andprayingthatjudgmentberenderedcommandingtherespondenttodoanactorseries
of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied, and to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the
maliciousneglecttoperformthedutiesoftherespondent,underthelaw,rulesorregulations.Thepetitionshall
alsocontainasworncertificationofnonforumshopping.
1 w p h i1

On matters of form, the petition must be verified and must contain supporting evidence as well as a sworn
certificationofnonforumshopping.Itisalsonecessarythatthepetitionermustbeonewhoisaggrievedbyanact
or omission of the government agency, instrumentality or its officer concerned. Sufficiency of substance, on the
other hand, necessitates that the petition must contain substantive allegations specifically constituting an
actionableneglectoromissionandmustestablish,attheveryleast,aprimafaciebasisfortheissuanceofthe
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
regulationorarightthereinand(4)thereisnootherplain,speedyandadequateremedyinthecourseoflaw.32
Thewritofcontinuingmandamusisaspecialcivilactionthatmaybeavailedof"tocompeltheperformanceofan
actspecificallyenjoinedbylaw."33Thepetitionshouldmainlyinvolveanenvironmentalandotherrelatedlaw,rule
orregulationorarighttherein.TheRTCsmistakennotionontheneedforafinaljudgment,decreeororderis
apparentlybasedonthedefinitionofthewritofcontinuingmandamusunderSection4,Rule1oftheRules,towit:
(c) Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court in an environmental case directing any agency or
instrumentalityofthegovernmentorofficerthereoftoperformanactorseriesofactsdecreedbyfinaljudgment
whichshallremaineffectiveuntiljudgmentisfullysatisfied.(Emphasisours)
Thefinalcourtdecree,orderordecisionerroneouslyalludedtobytheRTCactuallypertainstothejudgmentor
decree that a court would eventually render in an environmental case for continuing mandamus and which
judgmentordecreeshallsubsequentlybecomefinal.

UndertheRules,afterthecourthasrenderedajudgmentinconformitywithRule8,Section7andsuchjudgment
has become final, the issuing court still retains jurisdiction over the case to ensure that the government agency
concernedisperformingitstasksasmandatedbylawandtomonitortheeffectiveperformanceofsaidtasks.Itis
onlyuponfullsatisfactionofthefinaljudgment,orderordecisionthatafinalreturnofthewritshallbemadetothe
court and if the court finds that the judgment has been fully implemented, the satisfaction of judgment shall be
entered in the court docket.34 A writ of continuing mandamus is, in essence, a command of continuing
compliancewithafinaljudgmentasit"permitsthecourttoretainjurisdictionafterjudgmentinordertoensurethe
successfulimplementationofthereliefsmandatedunderthecourtsdecision."35
TheCourt,likewise,cannotsustaintheargumentthatthepetitionersshouldhavefirstfiledacasewiththePanel
ofArbitrators(Panel),whichhasjurisdictionoverminingdisputesunderR.A.No.7942.
Indeed,aspointedoutbytherespondents,thePanelhasjurisdictionoverminingdisputes.36Butthepetitionfiled
below does not involve a mining dispute. What was being protested are the alleged negative environmental
impact of the smallscale mining operation being conducted by Antones Enterprises, Global Summit Mines
DevelopmentCorporationandTROreintheMunicipalityofMatnogtheauthorityoftheGovernorofSorsogonto
issueminingpermitsinfavoroftheseentitiesandtheperceivedindifferenceoftheDENRandlocalgovernment
officialsovertheissue.Resolutionofthesemattersdoesnotentailthetechnicalknowledgeandexpertiseofthe
members of the Panel but requires an exercise of judicial function. Thus, in Olympic Mines and Development
Corp.v.PlatinumGroupMetalsCorporation,37theCourtstated
ArbitrationbeforethePanelofArbitratorsisproperonlywhenthereisadisagreementbetweenthepartiesasto
some provisions of the contract between them, which needs the interpretation and the application of that
particularknowledgeandexpertisepossessedbymembersofthatPanel.Itisnotproperwhenoneoftheparties
repudiatestheexistenceorvalidityofsuchcontractoragreementonthegroundoffraudoroppressionasinthis
case.Thevalidityofthecontractcannotbesubjectofarbitrationproceedings.Allegationsoffraudandduressin
theexecutionofacontractarematterswithinthejurisdictionoftheordinarycourtsoflaw.Thesequestionsare
legal in nature and require the application and interpretation of laws and jurisprudence which is necessarily a
judicialfunction.38(Emphasissuppliedintheformerandoursinthelatter)
Consequently,resorttothePanelwouldbecompletelyuselessandunnecessary.
TheCourtalsofindsthattheRTCerredinrulingthatthepetitionisinfirmforfailuretoattachjudicialaffidavits.As
previously stated, Rule 8 requires that the petition should be verified, contain supporting evidence and must be
accompanied by a sworn certification of nonforum shopping. There is nothing in Rule 8 that compels the
inclusion of judicial affidavits, albeit not prohibited. It is only if the evidence of the petitioner would consist of
testimonyofwitnessesthatitwouldbethetimethatjudicialaffidavits(affidavitsofwitnessesinthequestionand
answerform)mustbeattachedtothepetition/complaint.39
Finally,failuretofurnishacopyofthepetitiontotherespondentsisnotafataldefectsuchthatthecaseshouldbe
dismissed.TheRTCcouldhavejustrequiredthepetitionerstofurnishacopyofthepetitiontotherespondents.It
should be remembered that "courts are not enslaved by technicalities, and they have the prerogative to relax
compliancewithproceduralrulesofeventhemostmandatorycharacter,mindfulofthedutytoreconcileboththe
needtospeedilyputanendtolitigationandthepartiesrighttoanopportunitytobeheard."40
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheOrderdatedSeptember16,2011andResolutiondatedOctober18,
2011 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Branch 53, dismissing Civil Case No. 20118338 are
NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE. The Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon is DIRECTED to
transferthecasetotheRegionalTrialCourtofIrosin,Branch55,forfurtherproceedingswithdispatch.Petitioner
MaricrisD.DolotisalsoORDEREDtofurnishtherespondentswithacopyofthepetitionanditsannexeswithin
ten(10)daysfromreceiptofthisDecisionandtosubmititsCompliancewiththeRTCofIrosin.
SOORDERED.
BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

PRESBIOTEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

(Onleave)
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice

(Onofficialleave)
MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

MARVICMARIOVICTORF.LEONEN
AssociateJustice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1Rollo,pp.417.
2PennedbyPresidingJudgeRofebarF.Geronaid.at3435.
3PennedbyExecutiveJudgeVictorC.Gellaid.at4345.
4Id.at2133.
5Id.at2225.
6Id.at2529.
7Id.at2932.
8Id.at34.
9Id.at3435.
10Id.at4345.
11 The motion for reconsideration was resolved by the Pairing Judge of Branch 53 since the Presiding

Judgerecusedhimselffromthecase.
12Rollo,pp.4344.
13Re:DesignationofSpecialCourtstoHear,TryandDecideEnvironmentalCases.IssuedbytheCourton

January 28, 2008. Branch 53 of Sorsogon is one of the special courts designated in the Fifth Judicial
Region. The other courts are Branch 1 (Legaspi City), Branch 13 (Ligao City), Branch 15 (Tabaco City),
Branch25(NagaCity),Branch32(Pili),Branch35(IrigaCity),Branch38(Daet)andBranch47(Masbate
City).

14Rollo,p.34.
15Id.
16LandbankofthePhilippinesv.Villegas,G.R.No.180384,March26,2010,616SCRA626,630.
17PlatinumTours&Travel,Inc.v.Panlilio,457Phil.961,967(2003).
18GomezCastillov.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.187231,June22,2010,621SCRA499,507.
19Id.
20317Phil.9(1995).
21Id.at22,citingMalaloanv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.104879,May6,1994,232SCRA249,261.
22Mendiolav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.159746,July18,2012,677SCRA27,50.
23RulesofProcedureforEnvironmentalCases,Rule8,Section2.

Rule1,Section1,meanwhile,statesthattherulesshallgoverntheprocedureincivil,criminalandspecial
civil actions before the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts involving enforcement or violations of
environmentalandotherrelatedlaws,rulesandregulations.
24UnderA.O.No.7,Seriesof1983(asamended,2009),RTCIrosin,Branch55,coversthemunicipalities

ofIrosin,MatnogandSantaMagdalena.Branches51to53ofRTCSorsogon,ontheotherhand,coverthe
cityofSorsogonandthemunicipalitiesofCasiguran,Castilla,Donsol,JubanandPilar.
25RudolfLietzHoldings,Inc.v.RegistryofDeedsofParaaque,398Phil.626,632(2000).
26UnionBankofthePhilippinesv.People,G.R.No.192565,February28,2012,667SCRA113,122.
27G.R.No.187231,June22,2010,621SCRA499.
281987CONSTITUTION,ArticleIV,Section5InternalRulesoftheSupremeCourt,asamended,Rule4,

Section3A.M.No.10420SC(Revised),March12,2013.
29Rollo,pp.4344.
30G.R.Nos.17194748,December18,2008,574SCRA661.
31 Manila International Airport Authority v. Olongapo Maintenance Services, Inc., 567 Phil. 255, 281282

(2008).
32 The petition must also specify that it concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation and must pray

thatjudgmentberenderedcommandingtherespondenttodoanactorseriesofactsuntilthejudgmentis
fullysatisfied.
33BoracayFoundation,Inc.v.ProvinceofAklan,G.R.No.196870,June26,2012,674SCRA555,606.
34RULESOFPROCEDUREFORENVIRONMENTALCASES,Rule8,Section8.
35Supranote33.(Underscoringours)
36 Section 77 of R.A. No. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act) provides that the Panel of Arbitrators shall have

exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear and decide (a) disputes involving rights to mining areas (b)
disputes involving mineral agreements or permits (c) disputes involving surface owners, occupants and
claimholders/concessionairesand(d)disputespendingbeforetheBureauandtheDepartmentatthedate
oftheeffectivityofR.A.No.7942.
37G.R.No.178188,August14,2009,596SCRA314.
38Id.at331332,citingGonzalesv.ClimaxMiningLtd.,492Phil.682,696697(2005).

39RULESOFPROCEDUREFORENVIRONMENTALCASES,Rule2,Section3.
40Tomasv.Santos,G.R.No.190448,July26,2010,625SCRA645,650651.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation