Bangus Fry Fisherfolk, etal vs. DENR, etalFacts:

On June 30, 1997, the Regional Executive Director of DENR of Region IV, Antonio G. Principe issued an Environment Clearance Certificate valid for 2 years in favor of NAPOCOR which authorizes NAPOCOR to construct a temporary mooring facility in Minolo Cove, Sitio Minolo, Brgy. San Isidro, Puerto Galera, Oriental Midoro wbich has been declared as a mangrove area and breeding ground for bangus fry, an eco-tourist zone by the Sangguniang Bayan of Puerto Galera. The temporary mooring facility would serve as the temporary docking site of NAPOCORS power barge which due to turbulent waters at its former mooring site in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro required relocation to a safer site like Minolo Cove. It would provide to main source of power for the entire province of Oriental Mindoro. Petitioners sought reconsideration of the issuance of ECC but it was denied by Principe. On July 21, 1997, petitioners filed a complaint with the RTC of Manila for the cancellation of the ECC and for the issuance of a writ of injunction to stop the construction of the mooring facility, they further prayed for the demolition of mooring structures the respondents has already built. Prior to the filing of the amended complaint the RTC issued a 20-day TRO enjoining the construction of the mooring facility but the RTC lifted the same on NAPOCORs manifestation that the provincial government of Oriental Mindoro was the one undertaking the construction of the mooring facility. The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint and claimed that the petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies rendering the complaint without cause of action. They also asserted that RTC-Manila has no jurisdiction over the case and to enjoin the construction of the mooring facility in Oriental Mindoro which lies outside the Manila RTCs territorial jurisdiction. Petitioners opposed the motion on the ground that there was no need to exhaust administrative remedies and that the implementation of the ECC was in patent violation of its terms. The RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground that petitioners have clearly failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before taking a legal action in Court and that it has no jurisdiction to issue the injunctive writ prayed for in the complaint. The petitioners filed a petition for review with the SC.ISSUE:

WON the RTC erred in dismissing petitioners complaint for lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction.

HELD:

The SC denied the petition for lack of merit. The settled rule is before a party may seek the intervention of the Courts, he should first avail of all means afforded by administrative processes. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery is still available with a procedure prescribed pursuant to law for an administrative officer to decide the controversy, a party should first exhaust such remedy before resorting to the Courts. The premature invocation of a courts intervention renders the complaint without cause of action and dismissible on such ground.

On the other hand, the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts to issue injunctive writs is limited to acts committed or about to be committed within their judicial region. PD 1818 prohibited courts from issuing injunctive writs against government infrastructure projects like the mooring facility in the present case. RA 8975 superseded PD 1818 and delineates more clearly the coverage of the prohibition, reserves the power to issue such writs exclusively with the SC.MMDA, etal vs. JANCOM

FACTS:

Respondents was one of the bidders for the San Mateo Disposal Site. The Bids and Awards Committee declared JANCOM as the sole complying bidder. A contract for the BOT Implementation of the Solid Waste Management Project for the San Mateo, Rizal Waste Disposal was entered into by the Republic of the Philippines through the then DENR Secretary Victor Ramos, then Cabinet Office for Regional Development NCR Chairmane Dionisio Dela Serna and then MMDA Chairman Prospero Oreta. The contract was submitted for approval to President Ramos who subsequently endorsed it to then incoming President Joseph Estrada. Upon the request of the residents of Rizal, the Estrada administration ordered the closure of San Mateo landfill. The petitioner then adopted a resolution not to pursue the contract with JANCOM citing as reasons, the passage of RA 8749 or the Clean Air Act of 1999, the non-availability of the San Mateo site and costly tipping fees. Atty. Manuel Molina was authorized by the BOD of the JANCOM Internationals to act as legal counsel for respondents and to determine and file such legal action as deemed necessary before the Philippine Courts in any manner he may deem appropriate against petitioners. The respondents through their counsel filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC of Pasig City to declare the resolution and acts of GMMSWMC and MMDA calling for bids for and authorizing the forging of a new contract for the MM waste management as illegal, unconstitutional and void and to enjoin petitioners from implementing the resolution and making another award in lieu thereof. RTC Pasig City decided in favor of the respondents. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for a TRO with the CA. The CA denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. Petitioners file a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied. Petitioners filed a petition for review with the SC. The SC affirmed the decision of the CA and declared the contract valid and perfected albeit ineffective and unimplementable pending approval of the President. JANCOM and MMDA later entered into negotiations to modify certain provisions of the contract. Respondents through their counsel subsequently filed an Omnibus Motion.ISSUE:

WON the CA gravely erred in upholding the lower court.

HELD:

The SC granted the petition. The decision of the CA was set aside and the order of RTC is declared null and void. When a judgment becomes final, it is basic that the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution the issuance of with is the trial courts ministerial duty, compellable by mandamus.

That a writ of execution must conform to the judgment which is to be executed, substantially to every essential particular thereof, it is settled. It may not thus vary the terms of judgment, it seeks to enforce, nor go beyond its terms. Where the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it life and exceeds it, it has no validity.HENARES, etal vs. LTFRB and DTC

ISSUE:

WON the respondent can be compelled to require public utility vehicles to used compressed natural gas through a writ of mandamus.

HELD:

The SC dismissed the petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for lack of merit. On the part of the petitioner, it is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that he should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required. The writ will not issue to compel an official to do anything which is not his duty to do or which is his duty not to do or give to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law. It is simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed.

Mandamus is available only to compel the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as duty. In this case, there is no law that mandates LTFRB and DOTC to order owners of motor vehicles to use compressed natural gas. Further mandamus will not generally lie from one branch of government to a coordinate branch for the obvious reason that neither is inferior to the other. The need for future changes in both Legislative and its implementation cannot be preempted by orders form this Court especially when what is prayed for is procedurally infirm.

The SC admits in particular that petitioners are unable to pinpoint the law that imposes an indubitable legal duty on respondents that will justify a grant of the writ compelling the use of CNG for public utility vehicle.MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of Manila BayFACTS:

The complaint by the residents alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by law, specifically Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code and that ALL defendants (public officials) must be jointly and/or solidarily liable and collectively ordered to clean up Manila Bay and to restore its water quality to class B, waters fit for swimming, diving, and other forms of contact recreation. ISSUE:

(1) WON Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 under the headings, Upgrading of Water Quality and Clean-up Operations, envisage a cleanup in general or are they limited only to the cleanup of specific pollution incidents;

(2) WON petitioners be compel led by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay.

HELD:

The issuance of subsequent resolutions by the Court setting time frames be set for the executive agencies to perform their assigned tasks pursuant to earlier decision of the Court is simply an exercise of judicial power under the Constitution because the execution of the Decision is but an integral part of the adjudicative function of the Court not an encroachment by the Court over executive powers and functions.

With the final and executory judgment in MMDA, the writ of continuing mandamus issued in MMDA means that until petitioner agency have shown full compliance with the Courts orders, the Court exercises jurisdiction over them until full execution of judgment.

Province of Rizal vs. Executive Secretary

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD: