ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™

Like 0
Tweet Share Share
Tweet Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2002 > September 2002 Decisions > G.R. No. 148622
September 12, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CITY OF DAVAO:

Custom Search Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 148622. September 12, 2002.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by HON. HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ, in his capacity

as Secretary of the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR),
CLARENCE L. BAGUILAT, in his capacity as the Regional Executive Director of DENR-Region XI
and ENGR. BIENVENIDO L. LIPAYON, in his capacity as the Regional Director of the DENR-
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU (DENR-EMB), Region XI, Petitioners, v. THE CITY OF
DAVAO, represented by BENJAMIN C. DE GUZMAN, City Mayor, Respondent.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Before us is a petition for review 1 on certiorari assailing the decision 2 dated May 28, 2001 of the
Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 33, which granted the writ of mandamus and injunction in
favor of respondent, the City of Davao, and against petitioner, the Republic, represented by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The trial court also directed petitioner to
issue a Certificate of Non-Coverage in favor of Respondent. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
On August 11, 2000, respondent filed an application for a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) for its
proposed project, the Davao City Artica Sports Dome, with the Environmental Management Bureau
(EMB), Region XI. Attached to the application were the required documents for its issuance, namely, a)
detailed location map of the project site; b) brief project description; and c) a certification from the City
Planning and Development Office that the project is not located in an environmentally critical area (ECA).
The EMB Region XI denied the application after finding that the proposed project was within an
environmentally critical area and ruled that, pursuant to Section 2, Presidential Decree No. 1586,
otherwise known as the Environmental Impact Statement System, in relation to Section 4 of Presidential
Decree No. 1151, also known as the Philippine Environment Policy, the City of Davao must undergo the
environmental impact assessment (EIA) process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate
(ECC), before it can proceed with the construction of its project.

Believing that it was entitled to a Certificate of Non-Coverage, respondent filed a petition for mandamus
and injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Davao, docketed as Civil Case No. 28, 133-2000. It alleged
that its proposed project was neither an environmentally critical project nor within an environmentally
critical area; thus it was outside the scope of the EIS system. Hence, it was the ministerial duty of the
DENR, through the EMB-Region XI, to issue a CNC in favor of respondent upon submission of the
required documents.

The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of respondent, the dispositive portion of which reads
as follows:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ChanRobles Intellectual Property WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be meritorious, judgment granting the writ of mandamus and
Division injunction is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner City of Davao and against respondents
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the other respondents by: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) directing the respondents to issue in favor of the petitioner City of Davao a Certificate of Non-
Coverage, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1586 and related laws, in connection with the construction
by the City of Davao of the Artica Sports Dome;

September-2002 Jurisprudence
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1455 September 2, 2002 -
NECITAS A. ORNILLO v. JUDGE ROSARIO B. RAGASA
G.R. Nos. 132791 & 140465-66 September 2, 2002
- PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL BERNAL
G.R. No. 139576 September 2, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO PUEDAN
A.M. Nos. 2001-1-SC & 2001-2-SC September 3,
2002 - MARILYN I. DE JOYA, ET AL. v. ELSA T.
BALUBAR
A.M. No. RTJ-02-1715 September 3, 2002 - ATTY.
DIOSDADO CABRERA v. JUDGE OSCAR E. ZERNA, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 137759 September 3, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. ARCHIBALD PATOSA
G.R. No. 139268 September 3, 2002 - PT&T v.
COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 140205 September 3, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. JOHNNY DELA CONCHA
G.R. No. 144763 September 3, 2002 - REYMOND B.
LAXAMANA v. MA. LOURDES D. LAXAMANA
G.R. No. 144784 September 3, 2002 - PEDRO G.
SISTOZA v. ANIANO DESIERTO
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1367 September 5, 2002 -
FREDESMINDA DAYAWON v. ZEIDA AURORA B.
GARFIN
A.M. No. MTJ 94-995 September 5, 2002 - LUZ
ALFONSO, ET AL. v. ROSE MARIE ALONZO-LEGASTO,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 125908 September 5, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTOR BALILI
G.R. No. 126776 September 5, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. JAIME VALENZUELA
G.R. No. 130660 September 5, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLLY AND JOSE DORIO
G.R. No. 142380 September 5, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. SPO1 DANILO LOBITANIA
G.R. Nos. 142993-94 September 5, 2002 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BIANE BONTUAN
G.R. No. 143360 September 5, 2002 - EQUITABLE
LEASING CORP. v. LUCITA SUYOM, ET AL.
G.R. No. 126752 September 6, 2002 - TOMAS HUGO
v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 140164 September 6, 2002 - DIONISIA L.
REYES v. RICARDO L. REYES, ET AL.
G.R. No. 141246 September 9, 2002 - PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK v. RICARDO v. GARCIA, JR.
G.R. No. 141407 September 9, 2002 - LAPULAPU
DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CORP. v. GROUP
MANAGEMENT CORP.
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1379 September 10, 2002 - RAMIL
LUMBRE v. JUSTINIANO C. DELA CRUZ
G.R. No. 130650 September 10, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
2) making the preliminary injunction issued on December 12, 2000 permanent.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED. 3
The trial court ratiocinated that there is nothing in PD 1586, in relation to PD 1151 and Letter of
Instruction No. 1179 (prescribing guidelines for compliance with the EIA system), which requires local
government units (LGUs) to comply with the EIS law. Only agencies and instrumentalities of the national
government, including government owned or controlled corporations, as well as private corporations,
firms and entities are mandated to go through the EIA process for their proposed projects which have
significant effect on the quality of the environment. A local government unit, not being an agency or
instrumentality of the National Government, is deemed excluded under the principle of expressio unius
est exclusio alterius.
The trial court also declared, based on the certifications of the DENR-Community Environment and
Natural Resources Office (CENRO)-West, and the data gathered from the Philippine Institute of
Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS), that the site for the Artica Sports Dome was not within an
environmentally critical area. Neither was the project an environmentally critical one. It therefore
becomes mandatory for the DENR, through the EMB Region XI, to approve respondent’s application for
CNC after it has satisfied all the requirements for its issuance. Accordingly, petitioner can be compelled
by a writ of mandamus to issue the CNC, if it refuses to do so.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, however, the same was denied. Hence, the instant petition
for review.
With the supervening change of administration, respondent, in lieu of a comment, filed a manifestation
expressing its agreement with petitioner that, indeed, it needs to secure an ECC for its proposed project.
It thus rendered the instant petition moot and academic. However, for the guidance of the implementors
of the EIS law and pursuant to our symbolic function to educate the bench and bar, 4 we are inclined to
address the issue raised in this petition.
Section 15 of Republic Act 7160, 5 otherwise known as the Local Government Code, defines a local
government unit as a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in conformity
with law. As such, it performs dual functions, governmental and proprietary. Governmental functions are
those that concern the health, safety and the advancement of the public good or welfare as affecting the
public generally. 6 Proprietary functions are those that seek to obtain special corporate benefits or earn
pecuniary profit and intended for private advantage and benefit. 7 When exercising governmental powers
and performing governmental duties, an LGU is an agency of the national government. 8 When engaged
in corporate activities, it acts as an agent of the community in the administration of local affairs. 9
Found in Section 16 of the Local Government Code is the duty of the LGUs to promote the people’s right
to a balanced ecology. 10 Pursuant to this, an LGU, like the City of Davao, can not claim exemption from
the coverage of PD 1586. As a body politic endowed with governmental functions, an LGU has the duty to
ensure the quality of the environment, which is the very same objective of PD 1586. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Further, it is a rule of statutory construction that every part of a statute must be interpreted with
reference to the context, i.e., that every part must be considered with other parts, and kept subservient
to the general intent of the enactment. 11 The trial court, in declaring local government units as exempt
from the coverage of the EIS law, failed to relate Section 2 of PD 1586 12 to the following provisions of
the same law:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
WHEREAS, the pursuit of a comprehensive and integrated environmental protection program necessitates
the establishment and institutionalization of a system whereby the exigencies of socio-economic
undertakings can be reconciled with the requirements of environmental quality; . . .
Section 1. Policy. — It is hereby declared the policy of the State to attain and maintain a rational and
orderly balance between socio-economic growth and environmental protection.
x x x
Section 4. Presidential Proclamation of Environmentally Critical Areas and Projects. — The President of
the Philippines may, on his own initiative or upon recommendation of the National Environmental
Protection Council, by proclamation declare certain projects, undertakings or areas in the country as
environmentally critical. No person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such
declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an Environmental Compliance
Certificate issued by the President or his duly authorized representative. For the proper management of
said critical project or area, the President may by his proclamation reorganize such government offices,
agencies, institutions, corporations or instrumentalities including the realignment of government
personnel, and their specific functions and responsibilities.
Section 4 of PD 1586 clearly states that "no person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate
any such declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an Environmental
Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly authorized representative." 13 The Civil Code
defines a person as either natural or juridical. The state and its political subdivisions, i.e., the local
government units 14 are juridical persons. 15 Undoubtedly therefore, local government units are not
excluded from the coverage of PD 1586.
Lastly, very clear in Section 1 of PD 1586 that said law intends to implement the policy of the state to
achieve a balance between socio-economic development and environmental protection, which are the
twin goals of sustainable development. The above-quoted first paragraph of the Whereas clause stresses
that this can only be possible if we adopt a comprehensive and integrated environmental protection
program where all the sectors of the community are involved, i.e., the government and the private
sectors. The local government units, as part of the machinery of the government, cannot therefore be
deemed as outside the scope of the EIS system. 16
The foregoing arguments, however, presuppose that a project, for which an Environmental Compliance
Certificate is necessary, is environmentally critical or within an environmentally critical area. In the case
at bar, respondent has sufficiently shown that the Artica Sports Dome will not have a significant negative
environmental impact because it is not an environmentally critical project and it is not located in an
environmentally critical area. In support of this contention, respondent submitted the following: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Certification from the City Planning and Development Office that the project is not located in an
environmentally critical area;
2. Certification from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO-West) that the
project area is within the 18-30% slope, is outside the scope of the NIPAS (R.A. 7586), and not within a
declared watershed area; and
3. Certification from PHILVOCS that the project site is thirty-seven (37) kilometers southeast of the
southernmost extension of the Davao River Fault and forty-five (45) kilometers west of the Eastern
Mindanao Fault; and is outside the required minimum buffer zone of five (5) meters from a fault zone.
The trial court, after a consideration of the evidence, found that the Artica Sports Dome is not within an
environmentally critical area. Neither is it an environmentally critical project. It is axiomatic that factual
findings of the trial court, when fully supported by the evidence on record, are binding upon this Court
and will not be disturbed on appeal. 17 This Court is not a trier of facts. 18
THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO VERCELES, ET AL.
G.R. No. 140799 September 10, 2002 - TOMAS T.
TEODORO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 143275 September 10, 2002 - LAND BANK
OF THE PHIL. v. ARLENE AND BERNARDO DE LEON
G.R. Nos. 146352-56 September 10, 2002 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BENIGNO ELONA
A.M. No. P-02-1551 September 11, 2002 - OFFICE
OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. EDILTRUDES A.
BESA
A.M. No. P-02-1629 September 11, 2002 - The Environmental Impact Statement System, which ensures environmental protection and regulates
CONCERNED EMPLOYEE v. HELEN D. NUESTRO
G.R. No. 132684 September 11, 2002 - HERNANI N.
FABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 140734-35 September 11, 2002 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERNESTO P. PADAO
G.R. Nos. 142928-29 September 11, 2002 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO TAMSI
A.M. No. P-01-1454 September 12, 2002 - JUDGE
GREGORIO R. BALANAG v. ALONZO B. OSITA
A.M. No. RTJ-02-1716 September 12, 2002 - SPO4
FELIPE REALUBIN v. JUDGE NORMANDIE D. PIZARRO
G.R. No. 134002 September 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. CARLOS BACCOY
G.R. No. 138978 September 12, 2002 - HI-YIELD
REALTY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL
G.R. No. 140634 September 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO PANSENSOY
G.R. No. 148622 September 12, 2002 - REPUBLIC
OF THE PHIL. v. CITY OF DAVAO
A.M. No. 00-11-526-RTC September 16, 2002 - IN
RE: MS EDNA S. CESAR, RTC, BRANCH 171,
VALENZUELA CITY
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1397 September 17, 2002 - RE:
ON-THE-SPOT JUDICIAL AUDIT IN MCTC, TERESA-
BARAS, RIZAL
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1635 September 17, 2002 - OFFICE
OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LUCENITO N.
TAGLE
G.R. Nos. 127660 & 144011-12 September 17, 2002
- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MICHAEL TADEO
G.R. No. 129039 September 17, 2002 - SIREDY
ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129113 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SABIYON
G.R. No. 133645 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEXANDER DINGLASAN
G.R. No. 134873 September 17, 2002 - ADR
SHIPPING SERVICES v. MARCELINO GALLARDO and
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. Nos. 135957-58 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GUILLERMO SAMUS
G.R. No. 136363 September 17, 2002 - JOSE C.
VALLEJO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 136769 September 17, 2002 - BAN HUA U.
FLORES v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
G.R. No. 136994 September 17, 2002 - BRAULIO
ABALOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 137237 September 17, 2002 - ANTONIO
PROSPERO ESQUIVEL and MARK ANTHONY ESQUIVEL
v. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN
G.R. No. 137273 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTORIANO ERNOSA
(Acquitted), ET AL.
G.R. No. 137824 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. NEXIEL ORTEGA @ "REX ORTEGA
G.R. No. 138989 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. ERLINDO BENSIG
G.R. No. 139013 September 17, 2002 - ZEL T.
ZAFRA and EDWIN B. ECARMA v. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. No. 139787 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. RANDOLPH JAQUILMAC
G.R. No. 141080 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ANECITO UNLAGADA
G.R. No. 141237 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE NASAYAO y BORROMEO
G.R. No. 141923 September 17, 2002 - CHINA
BANKING CORP., ET AL. v. HON. NORMA C. PERELLO,
ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 142372-74 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FEDERICO S. BENAVIDEZ
There are exceptional instances when this Court may disregard factual findings of the trial court, namely:
a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; b) when
the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; c) where there is a grave abuse of
discretion; d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; e) when the findings of fact
are conflicting; f) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case
and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; g) when the findings of the
Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; h) when the findings of fact are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; i) when the finding of fact of the Court of
Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence but is contradicted by the evidence on record;
and j) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties
and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. 19 None of these exceptions,
however, obtain in this case.
certain government activities affecting the environment, was established by Presidential Decree No.
1586. Section 2 thereof states:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
There is hereby established an Environmental Impact Statement System founded and based on the
environmental impact statement required under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1151, of all
agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, as well as private corporations, firms and entities, for every proposed project and
undertaking which significantly affect the quality of the environment.
Section 4 of PD 1151, on the other hand, provides: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Environmental Impact Statements. — Pursuant to the above enunciated policies and goals, all agencies
and instrumentalities of the national government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, as well as private corporations, firms and entities shall prepare, file and include in every
action, project or undertaking which significantly affects the quality of the environment a detailed
statement on —
(a) the environmental impact of the proposed action, project or undertaking
(b) any adverse environmental effect which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented
(c) alternative to the proposed action
(d) a determination that the short-term uses of the resources of the environment are consistent with the
maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the same; and
(e) whenever a proposal involves the use of depletable or nonrenewable resources, a finding must be
made that such use and commitment are warranted.
Before an environmental impact statement is issued by a lead agency, all agencies having jurisdiction
over, or special expertise on, the subject matter involved shall comment on the draft environmental
impact statement made by the lead agency within thirty (30) days from receipt of the same.
Under Article II, Section 1, of the Rules and Regulations Implementing PD 1586, the declaration of
certain projects or areas as environmentally critical, and which shall fall within the scope of the
Environmental Impact Statement System, shall be by Presidential Proclamation, in accordance with
Section 4 of PD 1586 quoted above.
Pursuant thereto, Proclamation No. 2146 was issued on December 14, 1981, proclaiming the following
areas and types of projects as environmentally critical and within the scope of the Environmental Impact
Statement System established under PD 1586: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
A. Environmentally Critical Projects
I. Heavy Industries
a. Non-ferrous metal industries
b. Iron and steel mills
c. Petroleum and petro-chemical industries including oil and gas
d. Smelting plants
II. Resource Extractive Industries
a. Major mining and quarrying projects
b. Forestry projects
1. Logging
2. Major wood processing projects
3. Introduction of fauna (exotic-animals) in public/private forests
4. Forest occupancy
5. Extraction of mangrove products
6. Grazing
c. Fishery Projects
1. Dikes for/and fishpond development projects
III. Infrastructure Projects
a. Major dams
b. Major power plants (fossil-fueled, nuclear fueled, hydroelectric or geothermal)
c. Major reclamation projects
d. Major roads and bridges
B. Environmentally Critical Areas
1. All areas declared by law as national parks, watershed reserves, wildlife preserves and sanctuaries;
2. Areas set aside as aesthetic potential tourist spots;
3. Areas which constitute the habitat for any endangered or threatened species of indigenous Philippine
Wildlife (flora and fauna);
 G.R. Nos. 144907-09 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL GUTIERREZ
G.R. No. 146247 September 17, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. EDGAR DAWATON
G.R. No. 149754 September 17, 2002 - MORTIMER
F. CORDERO v. ALAN G. GO, ET AL.
A.M. No. P-02-1639 September 18, 2002 - LYN A.
MALAYO and ROWENA P. RIPDOS v. ATTY. LEILA I.
CRUZAT
G.R. No. 126857 September 18, 2002 - SPOUSES
ALENDRY CAVILES and FLORA POTENCIANO CAVILES
v. THE HONORABLE SEVENTEENTH
G.R. No. 128574 September 18, 2002 - UNIVERSAL
ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION v. HEIRS OF
ANGEL TEVES
G.R. No. 130994 September 18, 2002 - SPOUSES
FELIMON and MARIA BARRERA v. SPOUSES
EMILIANO and MARIA CONCEPCION LORENZO
G.R. No. 138615 September 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. VIRGILIO BELAONG
G.R. No. 151992 September 18, 2002 -
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL. v. JUDGE MA.
LUISA QUIJANO-PADILLA, ET AL.
A.M. No. P-00-1364 September 19, 2002
DIOSCORO COMENDADOR v. JORGE M. CANABE
A.M. No. P-00-1379 September 19, 2002 - PEPITO
I. TORRES and MARTA M. TORRES v. VICENTE SICAT
G.R. No. 134759 September 19, 2002 - THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ORLANDO M. GUERRERO
G.R. No. 136462 September 19, 2002 - PABLO N.
QUIÑON v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 138974 September 19, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. ROBERTO SEGOVIA
G.R. No. 144029 September 19, 2002 - SPOUSES
GUILLERMO AGBADA and MAXIMA AGBADA v. INTER-
URBAN DEVELOPERS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 131966 September 23, 2002 - REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HON. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 132396 September 23, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 154569 September 23, 2002 - ROLANDO
PAGDAYAWON, ET AL. v. THE SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE, ET AL.
A.M. No. RTJ-02-1722 September 24, 2002
FRANCISCO CONCILLO v. JUDGE SANTOS T. GIL
G.R. No. 123780 September 24, 2002 - In Re:
Petition Seeking for Clarification as to the Validity
and Forceful Effect of Two (2) Final and Executory
but Conflicting Decisions of the Honorable Supreme
Court
G.R. No. 125063 September 24, 2002 - THE HEIRS
OF GUILLERMO A. BATONGBACAL v. THE COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. Nos. 136300-02 September 24, 2002 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL AARON
G.R. No. 138608 September 24, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLANDO TAMAYO
G.R. No. 144308 September 24, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO BARCELON, JR.
G.R. No. 144573 September 24, 2002 - ROSARIO N.
LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS and ROMEO A.
LIGGAYU
G.R. No. 145712 September 24, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTOR HATE
G.R. No. 146698 September 24, 2002 - PHILIPPINE
AIRLINES v. SPOUSES SADIC AND AISHA
KURANGKING and SPOUSES ABDUL SAMAD T.
DIANALAN AND MORSHIDA L. DIANALAN
G.R. No. 147348 September 24, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. MICHAEL SY alias
MICHAEL/DANIEL
G.R. No. 148029 September 24, 2002 - MICROSOFT
CORPORATION v. BEST DEAL COMPUTER CENTER
CORPORATION, et al
G.R. No. 148571 September 24, 2002 -
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. Hon. GUILLERMO G. PURGANAN
G.R. No. 148859 September 24, 2002 -
HERMINIGILDO LUCAS v. COURT OF APPEALS and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 132669 September 25, 2002 - THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SAMUEL "SONNY"
EMPERADOR y LOPEZ
A.M. No. P-02-1642 September 27, 2002 - VIOLETA
4. Areas of unique historic, archaeological, or scientific interests;
5. Areas which are traditionally occupied by cultural communities or tribes;
6. Areas frequently visited and/or hard-hit by natural calamities (geologic hazards, floods, typhoons,
volcanic activity, etc.);
7. Areas with critical slopes;
8. Areas classified as prime agricultural lands;
9. Recharged areas of aquifers;
10. Water bodies characterized by one or any combination of the following conditions;
a. tapped for domestic purposes
b. within the controlled and/or protected areas declared by appropriate authorities
c. which support wildlife and fishery activities
11. Mangrove areas characterized by one or any combination of the following conditions: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. with primary pristine and dense young growth;
b. adjoining mouth of major river systems;
c. near or adjacent to traditional productive fry or fishing grounds;
- d. which act as natural buffers against shore erosion, strong winds and storm floods;
e. on which people are dependent for their livelihood.
12. Coral reefs, characterized by one or any combinations of the following conditions: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a. with 50% and above live coralline cover;
b. spawning and nursery grounds for fish;
c. which act as natural breakwater of coastlines.
In this connection, Section 5 of PD 1586 expressly states: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Environmentally Non-Critical Projects. — All other projects, undertakings and areas not declared by the
President as environmentally critical shall be considered as non-critical and shall not be required to
submit an environmental impact statement. The National Environmental Protection Council, thru the
Ministry of Human Settlements may however require non-critical projects and undertakings to provide
additional environmental safeguards as it may deem necessary.
The Artica Sports Dome in Langub does not come close to any of the projects or areas enumerated
above. Neither is it analogous to any of them. It is clear, therefore, that the said project is not classified
as environmentally critical, or within an environmentally critical area. Consequently, the DENR has no
choice but to issue the Certificate of Non-Coverage. It becomes its ministerial duty, the performance of
which can be compelled by writ of mandamus, such as that issued by the trial court in the case at bar. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED. The decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Davao City, Branch 33, in Civil Case No. 28,133-2000, granting the writ of mandamus and
- directing the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to issue in favor of the City of Davao a
Certificate of Non-Coverage, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1586 and related laws, in connection
with the construction of the Artica Sports Dome, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug and Carpio, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Rollo, pp. 9-30.
2. Ibid., pp. 31-43.
3 Ibid., p. 42.
4. Gonzales v. Chavez, 205 SCRA 816, 830 (1992); Consolidated Bank and Trust
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 158, 176 (1991).
5. RA 7160, Section 15. Political and Corporate Nature of Local Government Units. — Every
local government unit created or recognized under this Code is a body politic and corporate
endowed with powers to be exercised by it in conformity with law. As such, it shall exercise
powers as a political subdivision of the National Government and as a corporate entity
representing the inhabitants of its territory.
6. Department of Public Services Labor Unions v. Court of Industrial Relations, 1 SCRA
316, 319 (1961).
7. Blaquera v. Alcala, 295 SCRA 366, 425 (1998).
8. Tiu San v. Republic, 96 Phil. 817, 820 (1955).
9. Lidasan v. Commission on Elections, 21 SCRA 496, 506 (1967).
10. General Welfare. — Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly
granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or
incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the
promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local
government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and
enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a
balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant
scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic
prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain
peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.
11. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 295 SCRA 89, 96
(1998).
 R. VILLANUEVA v. ARMANDO T. MILAN 12. Supra.

G.R. No. 113626 September 27, 2002 - JESPAJO 13. Supra.

REALTY CORPORATION v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL. 14. Administrative Code of 1987, Section 2(3). Local Government refers to the political
subdivisions established by or in accordance with the Constitution.
G.R. No. 132364 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. ALFREDO ALVERO y TARADO
15. Civil Code of the Philippines, Book 1, Chapter 3, Art. 44. The following are juridical
G.R. No. 133582 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF persons: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

THE PHILIPPINES v. TEDDY ANGGIT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 134387 September 27, 2002 - TEOFILO
ABUEVA Y CAGASAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 137405 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. DELFIN DELA CRUZ
G.R. No. 137990 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. NELSON MAHILUM
(1) The State and its political subdivisions; . . .
16. Administrative Code of 1987, Section 2 (1) Government of the Republic of the
Philippines refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of the
government are exercised throughout the Philippines, including, save as the contrary
appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made
effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the provincial,
city, municipality or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government.

G.R. No. 138647 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. MARLON P. BULFANGO
G.R. No. 138782 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. JERRY VILLEGAS.
17. MOF Company, Inc. v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 149280, May 9, 2002.
18. Jacutin v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 140604, March 6, 2002.
19. Herbosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119087, January 25, 2002.

G.R. No. 139131 September 27, 2002 - JESUS R.

GONZALES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 140392 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES v. MELCHOR P. ESTEVES Back to Home | Back to Main
G.R. No. 140639 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSEPH BARTOLO alias
"BOBONG" QUICK SEARCH
G.R. No. 146689 September 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. FERNANDO (FERDINAND)
MONJE Y ROSARIO @ Fernan, ET AL.
1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
G.R. No. 148241 September 27, 2002 - HANTEX 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
TRADING CO., INC. and/or MARIANO CHUA v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL. 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
G.R. No. 149276 September 27, 2002 - JOVENCIO
LIM and TERESITA LIM v. THE PEOPLE OF THE 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
PHILIPPINES 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
G.R. No. 150092 September 27, 2002 - GLOBE 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
TELECOM, ET AL. v. JOAN FLORENDO-FLORES 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
G.R. No. 146436 September 30, 2002 - PEOPLE OF 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
THE PHILIPPINES v. PAQUITO CARIÑO 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Copyright © 1998 - 20191998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED