Filinvest Credit Corporation vs IAC and Nestor Sunga Jr.

G.R. No. 65935

Facts:
A case filed by Nestor Sunga Jr., businessman and owner of the NBS
Machineries and the NAP-NAP Transit. He purchased a minibus Mazda
from Motorcester with an agreement to pay the balance in monthly basis.
Later, Nestor failed to pay his obligations to the company which cause the
confiscation of the minibus by the officers of Filinvest Corp. The minibus
was mortgaged to Filinvest Corp. Sunga cleared his obligations to Filinvest
which the court rendered decisions granting Sunga moral, actual damages,
litigation expenses and Attorney's fees. Filinvest filed motion to review the
decision of the court.
Issue:
Whether the award of damages to Sunga is valid
Held:
Yes. It is valid but it is unconscionable, therefore the SC reduced the
amount granted to Sunga since the facts show that the latter had not
suffered much and that it is his obligation to pay the minibus as it was
stipulated between him and Filinvest Corp. Moral and actual damages were
granted but litigation expenses was eliminated for it has no price for
litigation.
Agapito Magbanwa, et al vs IAC
G.R. no. 66870-72
Facts:
A case where all plaintiffs who were tenants of the defendants
complained the diversion of the free flow of water from their farm lots which
caused portions of their landholdings to dry up to their great damage and
prejudice and they were asked to vacate the areas for they could not plant
any longer for lack of water.
Issue:
Whether plaintiffs are entitled to damages
Held:
Yes. Because the closing of water flow to the petitioners farm lots
caused damage and prejudicial to them in their harvest. It has no showing
in the facts that petitioners were negligent but instead the respondents bad
faith which caused prejudice to the former. Under the law, the landowner
has the obligation to keep tenant in the peaceful and continuous cultivation
of his landholding. A disturbance of possession such as the act complained
of is violative of the law. Therefore, the court granted moral and exemplary
damages and Attorneys fees to plaintiffs.

JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all surnamed

OPOSA, minors, and represented by their parents
vs.
THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity as
the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, and THE HONORABLE ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, Presiding
Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66,
G.R. No. 101083
Facts:
This case is unique in that it is a class suit brought by 44 children,
through their parents, claiming that they bring the case in the name of their
generation as well as those generations yet unborn. Aiming to stop
deforestation, it was filed against the Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, seeking to have him cancel all the
timber license agreements (TLAs) in the country and to cease and desist
from accepting and approving more timber license agreements.
The children invoked their right to a balanced and healthful ecology and to
protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae.
The petitioners claimed that the DENR Secretary's refusal to
cancel the TLAs and to stop issuing them was "contrary to the highest law
of humankind the natural law and violative of plaintiffs' right to selfpreservation and perpetuation." The case was dismissed in the lower court,
invoking the law on non-impairment of contracts, so it was brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari.
Issue:
Whether children have the legal standing to file the case?
Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that
the children had the legal standing to file the case based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility. Their right to a healthy environment
carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding
generations. In this, the Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of
future generations. Also, the Court said, the law on non-impairment of
contracts must give way to the exercise of the police power of the state in
the interest of public welfare.

Ernesto Rodriguez, et. al. vs. IAC and Daytona Construction and
Development Corporation
G.R. no. 74816
Facts:
Plaintiffs filed an action for abatement of a public nuisance with
damages against defendant. After four extensions of time to file an answer

by defendant, Daytona moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction

and cause of action. Motions denied, defendant was declared in default
and authorized plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte. The facts of the case
at bar shows that there is other nearby residents who were prejudiced by
the Daytona Corp. for the running of its business. It affected their health
and property. But in this case, the delay of the respondents to answer id
questionable and contrary to law.
Issues:
1. Whether petitioners have cause of action to file the case
2. Whether respondents are liable for damages
Held:
1. Yes. Because the business had greatly prejudiced their health and
property. The permit given to Daytona is valid but the conditions provided
were not met.
2. Yes. Respondents are liable for damages except nominal damages
based on the discretion of the court instead moral and actual damages
were awarded because sufficient evidence had supported as such.
Technology Developers Inc. vs CA
G.R. No. 94759
Facts:
Technology Developers Inc. is engaged in manufacturing and
exporting charcoal briquette. On February 16, 1989, they received a letter
from respondent Acting Mayor Pablo Cruz, ordering the full cessation of the
operation of the petitioners plant in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The letter also
requested the company to show to the office of the mayor some
documents, including the Building permit, mayors permit, and Region IIIPollution of Environmental and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution Permit.
Since the company failed to comply in bringing the required
documents, respondent Acting Mayor, without notice, caused the padlock of
companys plant premises, effectively causing stoppage of its operation.
Technology Developers then instituted an action for certiorari,
prohiition, mandamus with preliminary injuction against respondents,
alleging that the closure order was issued in grave abuse of discretion. The
lower court ruled against the company. The CA affirmed the lower courts
ruling.
Issue:
Whether of not the mayor has authority to order the closure of the
plant. YES.
Whether or not the closure order was done with grave abuse of
discretion. NO.
Ruling:

1. No mayor's permit had been secured. While it is true that the

matter of determining whether there is a pollution of the
environment that requires control if not prohibition of the operation
of a business is essentially addressed to the then National
Pollution Control Commission of the Ministry of Human
Settlements, now the Environmental Management Bureau of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, it must be
recognized that the mayor of a town has as much responsibility to
protect its inhabitants from pollution, and by virture of his police
power, he may deny the application for a permit to operate a
business or otherwise close the same unless appropriate
measures are taken to control and/or avoid injury to the health of
the residents of the community from the emissions in the operation
of the business.
2. The Acting Mayor, in the letter, called the attention of petitioner to
the pollution emitted by the fumes of its plant whose offensive odor
"not only pollute the air in the locality but also affect the health of
the residents in the area," so that petitioner was ordered to stop its
operation until further orders and it was required to bring the
following:
a. Building permit;
b. Mayor's permit; and
c. Region III-Department of Environment
Resources Anti-Pollution permit.

and

Natural

3. This action of the Acting Mayor was in response to the complaint

of the residents of Barangay Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan,
directed to the Provincial Governor through channels.
4. The closure order of the Acting Mayor was issued only after an
investigation was made. It found that the fumes emitted by the
plant of petitioner goes directly to the surrounding houses and that
no proper air pollution device has been installed.
5. Petitioner failed to produce a building permit from the municipality
of Sta. Maria, but instead presented a building permit issued by an
official of Makati.
6. While petitioner was able to present a temporary permit to operate
by the then National Pollution Control Commission on December

15, 1987, the permit was good only up to May 25, 1988. Petitioner
had not exerted any effort to extend or validate its permit much
less to install any device to control the pollution and prevent any
hazard to the health of the residents of the community.
Petitioner takes note of the plea of petitioner focusing on its huge
investment in this dollar-earning industry. It must be stressed however, that
concomitant with the need to promote investment and contribute to the
growth of the economy is the equally essential imperative of protecting the
health, nay the very lives of the people, from the deleterious effect of the
pollution of the environment.
OPOSA VS. FACTORAN
G.R. No. 1010183, July 30, 1993
Facts:
The petitioners, all minors, sought the help of the Supreme Court to
order the respondent, then Secretary of DENR, to cancel all existing Timber
License Agreement (TLA) in the country and to cease and desist from
receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new TLAs. They
alleged that the massive commercial logging in the country is causing vast
abuses on rain-forest.They further asserted that the rights of their
generation and the rights of the generations yet unborn to a balanced and
healthful ecology. Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental
consequences of continued and deforestation are so capable of
unquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter
of judicial notice. This notwithstanding, they expressed their intention to
present expert witnesses as well as documentary, photographic and film
evidence in the course of the trial.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners have a locus standi?
Held:
The SC decided in the affirmative. Locus standi means the right of
the litigant to act or to be heard.Under Section 16, Article II of the 1987
constitution, it states that: The state shall protect and advance the right of
the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm
and harmony of nature. Petitioners, minors assert that they represent their
generation as well as generation yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling
that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the
succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf
of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded
considers the rhythm and harmony of nature. Nature means the created
world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter

alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and

conservation of the countrys forest, mineral, land, waters fisheries, wildlife,
off- shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their
exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the
present as well as future generations. Needless to say, every generation
has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the
full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently,
the minors assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at
the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection
of that right for the generations to come. This landmark case has been
ruled as a class suit because the subject matter of the complaint is of
common and general interest, not just for several but for ALL CITIZENS OF
THE PHILIPPINES.
Legaspi VS. Civil Service Commission
G.R. no. 72119
Facts:
Civil Service Commission denied Valentin Legaspis (petitioner)
request for information on the civil service eligibilities of 2 people employed
as sanitarians, Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas, in the Health
Department in Cebu. Petitioner claims that his right to information is
guaranteed by the Constitution prays for the issuance of the extraordinary
writ of mandamus to compel the respondent Commission to disclose said
information. The Solicitor General challenges the petitioners standing to
sue upon the ground that the latter does not possess any legal right to be
informed of the civil services eligibilities of the government employees
concerned. SolGen further argues that there is no ministerial duty on the
part of the Commission to furnish the petitioner with the information he
seeks.
Issue:
WON the petitioner has legal to access government records to
validate the civil service eligibilities of the Health Department employees.
Held:
Civil Service Commission is ordered to open its register of eligible for
the position of sanitarian, and to confirm or deny, the civil service eligibility
of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas, for said position in the Health
Department of Cebu City, as requested by the petitioner Valentin L.
Legaspi.

Eduardo F. Hernandez, Ma. Encarbacion R. Legaspi, Jaime Blanco, Jr.,

Enrique Belo, Carlos Viaplana, Carl Furer, Vivencio Tinio, Michael
Briggs, Rosa Caram, Fausto Preysler, Robert Kua, George Lee,
Guillermo Luchangco, Peter Dee, Luisa Marquez, Angelita Lilles, Juan
Carlos, Homer Go, Amadeo Valenzuela, Emilio Ching, Antonio Chan,
Murli Sabnani, Marcos Roces, Raymundo Feliciano, Norma Gaffud, Alf

Holst, Lourdes P. Roque, Manuel Dy, Raul Fernandez, Victoria Tengco,

Chi Mo Cheng, Barangay Dasmarias, And Hon. Francisco B. Ibay
Vs.
National Power Corporation.
G.R. No. 145328
March 23, 2006
Facts:
Sometime in 1996, NAPOCOR began the construction of 29
decagon-shaped steel poles or towers with a height of 53.4 meters to
support overhead high tension cables in connection with its 230 Kilovolt
Sucat-Araneta-Balintawak Power Transmission Project. Said transmission
line passes through the Sergio Osmea, Sr. Highway (South
Superhighway), the perimeter of Fort Bonifacio, and Dasmarias Village
proximate to Tamarind Road, where petitioners homes are. The said
project later proved to be petitioners bane of existence.
Alarmed by the sight of the towering steel towers, petitioners scoured
the internet on the possible adverse effects that such a structure could
cause to their health and well-being. Petitioners got hold of published
articles and studies linking the incidence of a fecund of illnesses to
exposure to electromagnetic fields. These illnesses range from cancer to
leukemia. The petitioners left no stones unturned to address their malady.
They aired this growing concern to the NAPOCOR, which conducted a
series of meetings with them. Negotiations between petitioners and the
NAPOCOR reached an impass, with petitioners vying for the relocation of
the transmission lines to Fort Bonifacio on one hand, and the NAPOCOR
insisting on a 12-meter easement widening, on the other.
On 9 March 2000, petitioners filed a Complaint for Damages with
Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction against NAPOCOR. Harping on the hazardous
effects of exposure to electromagnetic radiation to the health and safety to
themselves and their families, petitioners, through the instant case, sought
what they had failed to achieve through amicable means with NAPOCOR
and prayed, inter alia, for damages and the relocation of the transmission
lines to Lawton Avenue, Fort Bonifacio.
On 13 March 2000, Judge Francisco B. Ibay issued an order in Civil
Case No. 00-352, which temporarily restrained the respondent from
energizing and transmitting high voltage electric current through the said
project. By order of 15 March 2000, the trial court extended the restraining
order for 18 more days.
NAPOCOR filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction with the Court of Appeals
assailing the above order by the trial court. In light of the foregoing order of
the trial court, the petition which NAPOCOR filed with the Court of Appeals
was later amended to include the prayer for the nullification and injunction
of the Order dated 3 April 2000 of the trial court.
In the challenged decision of 3 May 2000, the Court of Appeals
reversed the trial courts order. In the Court of Appeals rationale, the
proscription on injunctions against infrastructure projects of the government

is clearly mandated by the above-quoted Section 1 of Presidential Decree

No. 1818, as reiterated by the Supreme Court in its Circulars No. 2-91 and
No. 13-93, dated 15 March 1991 and 5 March 1993, respectively.
Issues:
Whether the NAPOCOR Project infringes on petitioners substantive
right to health.
Held:
Yes. In sum, what Presidential Decree No. 1818 aims to avert is the
untimely frustration of government infrastructure projects, particularly by
provisional remedies, to the detriment of the greater good by disrupting the
pursuit of essential government projects or frustrate the economic
development effort of the nation. Presidential Decree No. 1818, however,
was not meant to be a blanket prohibition so as to disregard the
fundamental right to health, safety and well-being of a community
guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land. In the present case, the farreaching irreversible effects to human safety should be the primordial
concerns over presumed economic benefits per se as alleged by the
NAPOCOR.