Bangus Fry Fisherfolk v. Lanzanas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Regional Executive Director Antonio G. Principe of DENR Region IV issued an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) to the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) for the construction of a temporary mooring facility in Minolo Cove, Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro. Minolo Cove was declared an eco-tourist zone by the Sangguniang Bayan of Puerto Galera and is a breeding ground for bangus fry. Petitioners, fisherfolks from Minolo, sought reconsideration of the ECC issuance, which was denied. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 7, seeking the cancellation of the ECC and an injunction against the construction. The RTC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) but later lifted it. Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and lack of jurisdiction. The RTC granted the motion, dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action and jurisdiction. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review, assailing the RTC's dismissal order.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners' complaint for lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction. Whether the issuance of the ECC was in patent violation of Presidential Decree No. 1605, Sections 26 and 27 of Republic Act No. 7160, and Department Administrative Order No. 96-37. Whether NAPOCOR violated the terms of the ECC, justifying immediate judicial recourse.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal for lack of cause of action and jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint. The primary issue was the validity of the ECC, which falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC. However, the petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing the DENR Regional Director's decision to the DENR Secretary, as mandated by Department Administrative Order No. 96-37. This failure rendered the complaint dismissible for lack of cause of action. Furthermore, while the RTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter (validity of ECC), it could not issue an injunctive writ to stop construction in Oriental Mindoro due to territorial limitations and Presidential Decree No. 1818, which prohibits courts from issuing injunctions against government infrastructure projects. The Court noted that only the Supreme Court could issue such a writ under PD 1818 and later RA 8975. On the alleged patent illegality of the ECC: The Court found no merit in petitioners' claim that the ECC issuance was in patent violation of Presidential Decree No. 1605, Sections 26 and 27 of Republic Act No. 7160, and DAO 96-37. Regarding PD 1605, the Court noted that the applicability of the decree to Minolo Cove was a question of fact for the DENR to resolve. More importantly, the mooring facility was deemed a government public infrastructure, not a commercial structure as contemplated by PD 1605. Concerning RA 7160, the Court clarified that Sections 26 and 27 apply to projects that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of resources, loss of cover, extinction of species, or eviction of people. The mooring facility itself was not considered environmentally critical in this regard, and the operation of the power barge was not the subject of the complaint. As for DAO 96-37, the Court stated that the mere absence of documentary requirements like a locational clearance or zoning certificate does not automatically render the ECC issuance patently illegal, especially when the issuing officer acted with apparent authority. These issues should have been raised administratively. On the alleged non-compliance with the terms of the ECC: The Court found this contention also without merit. The fact that the ECC might be subject to cancellation for non-compliance does not excuse petitioners from following the prescribed administrative procedures for appealing the DENR Executive Director's decision. DAO 96-37 provides a specific administrative process for complaints seeking the nullification of an ECC, including investigation and appeal to the DENR Secretary. Petitioners' resort to court action without exhausting these remedies was improper.
Main Doctrine
Failure to exhaust administrative remedies, absent patent illegality or grave abuse of discretion, renders a complaint dismissible for lack of cause of action. Furthermore, courts are without jurisdiction to issue injunctive writs against government infrastructure projects under Presidential Decree No. 1818, as amended.