Crisostomo, Rafael Rufo B.

2-C

Section

Natural Resources and Environmental Laws

Case Digests
1. FILINVEST vs. IAC,
G.R. No. L-65935, September 30, 1988
Facts:
Nestor Sunga Jr., a businessman, purchased a passenger minibus
Motor Center Inc. in Calasiao, Pangasinan on March 21, 1978. He
executed a promissory note, covering the amount of P62,592 and
payable in the amount of P2,608 for 24 months and a chattel mortgage
in favor of Motor Center, assigned to Filinvest Credit Corporation. The
minibus was seized by employees of Filinvest because he was
delinquent of his payments, but was recovered. It was then verified
that Sungas accounts were in order. Sunga filed for damages against
Filinvest and won in the Trial court ordering filinvest to pay P30,000 in
moral damages. Filinvest appealed to the IAC which then affirmed the
prior judgment and increased the damages to P50,000. Filinvest
contends that the assignment of damages was exaggerated and
unconscionable.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the amount of damages assigned by the IAC was
extravagant
Held:
Yes, the amount assigned as damages by the IAC was
extravagant, even if the respondent is entitled to moral damages. The
Court found that the award of P30,000, later P50,000, in moral
damages is excessive and emphasized that damages are not obtained
to enrich the complainant at the expense of the defendant. It only
serves to alleviate the moral sufferings the defendant has gone
through and must be proportionate to such suffering.
2. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. CA,
G.R. No. 110120, March 16, 1994
Facts:

On December 5, 1991, The Laguna Lake Development Authority

issued a cease-and-desist order against the City Government of
Caloocan, prohibiting them from operating a dumpsite on Camarin,
Caloocan. The LLDA investigated on the matter and found out that the
City Government of Caloocan operated the dumpsite without the
required certification from the DENR and that the waste contaminated
the water in the area. The City Government complied but on August
1992, operations resumed. The LLDA enforced the order by prohibiting
the entry of garbage trucks in the dumpsite. The City of Caloocan filed
an action with the RTC to nullify said order, contending that it is the
sole authority in the area to promote health and safety and that the
LLDA has no authority to issue said order. The RTC ruled in favor of the
City government. The CA set aside both the injunction against LLDA
and the cease-and-desist order against the City Government.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the LLDA has the power to issue cease-and-desist
orders against the City Government
Held:
Yes. The Court ruled that the LLDA is authorized under RA 4850,
as amended by PD 813 to make, alter, or modify orders requiring the
discontinuance of pollution. The LLDA is specifically mandated by RA
4850 to carry out the policy of promoting and accelerating
development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake region. Its
charter, RA 4850 allows it to have broad powers in the regulation of
projects in the Laguna Lake region. It is a proper exercise of its power
to give cease-and-desist orders, as was done against the City
Government of Caloocan in this case.
3. AGAPITO MAGBANUA, et. Al., vs. IAC,
G.R. Nos. L-66870-72, June 29, 1985
Facts:
The petitioners are allegedly share tenants of the private
respondents. They filed an action against the respondents complaining
that the respondents diverted the flow of water to their farms,
rendering them dry, causing them great damage and prejudice. The
trial court found the respondents liable and ordered them to pay the
petitioners P10,000 each for damages, maintain said petitioners as

agricultural lessees, and prohibited them from disrupting the flow of

water to the farms. Upon appeal, the IAC removed the damages.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to moral and
exemplary damages
Held:
Yes. The Court ruled that the petitioners are entitled to damages
under Art. 2219 of the Civil Code which permits the award of moral
damages to a person who suffers loss or injury in manner contrary to
moral, good customs, or public policy. In this case the respondents
denied irrigation to the petitioners in order for them to vacate their
landholdings, and caused them prejudice. They are also entitled to
exemplary damages because the respondents acted in an oppressive
manner.
4. OPOSA et. al., vs. FACTORAN, JR.,
G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
Facts:
The petitioners, all minors represented by their parents, filed a
class taxpayers suit against the Secretary of the DENR to cancel all
timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from
receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, and approving new timber
licenses. The petitioners asserted that they as citizens, are entitled to
the full use, benefit, and enjoyment, of the countrys virgin tropical
forests and that deforestation has adverse consequences to the
environment. They also asserted that they represent not only
themselves, but their generation and the generations yet unborn. The
respondent Secretary moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that
they have no cause of action against him. The trial court moved to
dismiss the complaint, having no cause of action and that it would
impair contracts. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioners
contended that they have cause of action because they have to
safeguard their right to a sound environment, and right to a healthful
and balanced ecology.
Issue/s:

1. Whether the class suit is valid

2. Whether or not the petitioners have a cause of action
Held:
Yes. The Court ruled that class suit is valid because the
petitioners are numerous and representative enough to ensure the full
protection of all concerned. The Court also ruled that the petitioners
can represent their generation and the succeeding generations based
on the concept of intergenerational responsibility, which states that
every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve the
rhythm and harmony of nature for the full enjoyment of a healthful and
balanced ecology to protect the rights of the next generations enjoy
the same.
Yes. The Court disagreed with the trial court that the petitioners
have no cause of action against the Secretary of Environment and
Natural Resources. It ruled that the right to a healthful and balanced
ecology, though not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it belongs to a
different set of rights that is concerned with self-preservation. To
conform to this right the DENR was mandated with the conservation,
management, and proper use of the countrys natural resources. It is
the duty of said Department to protect this right, thus, there is a cause
of action when this right is denied or violated.
5. RODRIGUEZ vs. IAC
G.R. No. 74816, March 17, 1987
Facts:
Daytona
Construction
and
Development
Corporation
manufactures road and concrete building materials and cement
located in Marcos Avenue, Quezon City. The petitioners, who reside
nearby, filed an action for abatement of public nuisance with damages
against the private respondents, because the effluence of the plant
causes property damage and illness. The private respondent moved to
dismiss the action for having no cause of action and the trial court
having no jurisdiction. Said motion was denied. Without filing an
answer, the trial court declared the private respondent in default and
ruled to close the cement plant and to pay damages to the petitioners.
The respondents filed a petition for injunction against the execution of
said judgement, but was denied by the IAC and the Supreme Court.
They instead appealed to the IAC contending that the trial court should

not have executed the judgment pending appeal. The IAC reversed the
decision of the trial court and remanded the case back to them.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the trial court may execute the judgment pending
appeal.
Held:
Yes. The Court ruled that the trial court had good reasons to issue
the order of execution pending appeal. There was a need to stop and
close the cement plant because it was injurious to the health and
property of the neighborhood where the plant is located and that its
operation causes serious discomfort to them, violates their rights and
causes them damage. The evidence presented by the plaintiffs clearly
establishes the need for the trial court to execute the judgment.
6. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS, INC., vs. CA
G.R. No. 94759, January 21, 1991
Facts:
Petitioner Technology Developers Inc. is a corporation who
manufactures charcoal briquette. They received a letter from Pablo
Cruz, the acting mayor of Sta. Maria Bulacan ordering them to cease
operations and to bring to his office a Building Permit, an Anti-Pollution
Permit and other documents. Lacking a Mayors Permit, when
inspected, the acting mayor had the plant padlocked, stopping their
operations. They for mandamus and preliminary injunction against the
respondent mayor which was granted by the lower court. In a motion
for reconsideration by the respondent mayor, evidence was presented
showing that the by-products from manufacturing process done in the
plant are hazardous to peoples health. The lower court then set aside
its prior order and dissolved the writ of injunction. The petitioner was
denied by the CA upon appeal.
Issue/s:
plant

Whether or not the acting mayor can close down the petitioners

Held:

Yes. The Court ruled that the mayor of a town has a responsibility
to protect his towns inhabitants from pollution, even though the
Environmental Management Bureau of the DENR is the agency that
determines whether the pollution requires control or prohibition of a
business operation. A mayor may deny the application of a permit to
operate a business by virtue of his police power unless the business
takes measures to control pollution resulting from his business
operations. In this case, the acting mayor called on the petitioner to
produce permits after receiving complaints from his towns residents
about the emissions from the plant and closed the plant after he found
out that the plant had no proper air pollution device installed.
7. HERNANDEZ VS. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION
G.R. No. 145328, March 23, 2006
Facts:
In 1996, the NAPOCOR began constructing 29 steel poles or
towers for its high-tension cables in the Sucat-Araneta-Balintawak
Transmission Project. The line passes through South Superhighway,
Fort Bonifacio, and Dasmarinas Village. The petitioners, who live in
Dasmarinas Village, were alarmed by the sight of the steel towers.
They learned, from the internet, electromagnetic fields from these
structures cause adverse health effects. They aired their concerns with
the NAPOCOR and with the House Committee on Energy. The NAPOCOR
came up with four options for the problem: 1. Transfer the Line to
Lawton Ave., 2. Maintain a 12 meter distance from the village., 3.
Construct an underground line., 4. Reroute along C-5 and South Luzon
Expressway. Reaching an impasse, the petitioners filed an action
against NAPOCOR. The trial court temporarily restrained the NAPOCOR
from energizing the power lines and enjoined them until there is final
judgment. The CA set aside the order on the ground of proscription on
injunctions against infrastructure projects according to PD 1818. Upon
appeal, the petitioners contended that PD 1818 was not construed to
apply in cases of extreme urgency such as their right to health and
safety.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the trial court may enjoin the construction of the
steel towers, notwithstanding PD 1818
Held:

Yes. The Court ruled that while PD 1818 prohibits courts from
issuing restraining orders and injunctions against infrastructure
projects, it is construed as such in order not to disrupt the projects or
frustrate economic development, but not to disregard the fundamental
right to health, safety and well-being. In this case, the trial court is
vested with the jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order and
a preliminary injunction because if the NAPOCOR was not enjoined, the
rights of the petitioners to health will be violated and endanger their
lives.