Digest Sept 28

G.R. No. 204835. September 22, 2015.
*
.
MOVERTRADE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT
and THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, respondents.
Civil Law; Contracts; Breach of Contract; A breach occurs where the contractor
inexcusably fails to perform substantially in accordance with the terms of the contract.It is
a basic principle in law that contracts have the force of law between the parties and should
be complied with in good faith. In this case, the contract specifically provides the manner of
disposing dredge spoils. Thus, petitioner cannot unilaterally change the manner of disposal
without
_______________
* EN BANC.
196
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Movertrade Corporation vs. Commission on Audit
first amending the contract or obtaining the express consent or approval of respondent
DPWH. Otherwise, petitioner would be guilty of breaching the contract. [A] breach occurs
where the contractor inexcusably fails to perform substantially in accordance with the terms
of the contract. Without a doubt, petitioners failure to dump the dredge spoils at the
designated spoil sites constitutes a breach.
Commission on Audit; Doctrine of Finality of Judgments; In the absence of grave abuse
of discretion, the decisions and resolutions of respondent Commission on Audit (COA) are
accorded not only with respect but also with finality, not only on the basis of the doctrine of
separation of powers, but also of its presumed expertise in the laws it is entrusted to enforce.
All told, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent COA in denying
petitioners money claim as the evidence on record undoubtedly supports the factual findings
of respondent COA. We need not belabor that in the absence of grave abuse of discretion, the
decisions and resolutions of respondent COA are accorded not only with respect but also with
finality, not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers, but also of its presumed
expertise in the laws it is entrusted to enforce.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Randy G. Serrano and Raymon Alis for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting
parties and should be complied with in good faith.1
This Petition for Certiorari2 under Rule 65, in relation to Rule 64, of the Rules of
Court assails the December 29, 2011
_______________
1 Civil Code, Art. 1159.

2 Rollo, pp. 13-41.
197
VOL. 771, SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 197
Decision3 of respondent Commission on Audit (COA), which denied petitioner
Movertrade Corporations claim for payment for dredging works with side dumping
of spoils in Pampanga Bay and the primary Pasac-Guagua-San Fernando Waterways
in Pampanga amounting to P7,354,897.10. Likewise assailed is the November 5, 2012
Resolution4 of respondent COA denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
Factual Antecedents
On February 7, 1996, petitioner and respondent Department of Public Works and

Highways (DPWH) entered into a Contract Agreement5 for dredging and other
related works in Pampanga Bay and the primary Pasac-Guagua-San Fernando
Waterways in Pampanga, which were affected by the Mt. Pinatubo eruptions and
mudflows, in the total amount of P188,698,000.00, broken down as follows:
The Mount Pinatubo Emergency-Project Management Office of respondent

DPWH, headed by Director Florante Sori-
_______________
3 Id., at pp. 55-61; penned by Chairperson Ma. Gracia M. Pulido-Tan and Commissioners Juanito G.
Espino, Jr. and Heidi L. Mendoza.
4 Id., at pp. 80-83.
5 Id., at pp. 84-92. Since time was of the essence, respondent DPWH requested authority from the
President to undertake the dredging through negotiated contract using simplified bidding (id., at p. 56).
6 Id., at pp. 55-56.
198
quez (Director Soriquez), implemented and supervised the project.7
On August 13, 1997, due to the alleged absence of spoil sites, petitioner requested
permission from Director Soriquez to allow it to undertake side dumping (dumping
within the river) chargeable against the dredging works.8
On August 18, 1997, Director Soriquez issued a letter9 denying the request. He
reminded petitioner that side dumping was not allowed and that as per the report of
Engr. Marcelino P. Bustos (Engr. Bustos), the Area Engineer of respondent DPWH,
petitioner could still pump the dredge spoils to the following spoil sites: Pascual A,
Pascual B, and the Regala fishpond.
On September 29, 1997, Engr. Bustos issued a letter10 requiring petitioner to
provide additional pipelines for distance pumping. Engr. Bustos also reiterated in his
letter that Pascual spoil site can still accommodate more materials and that
[respondent DPWH] is not allowing or giving any instruction to use side dumping
process for whatsoever reason.11
However, despite the denial and the prohibition issued by Director Soriquez and
Engr. Bustos, petitioner continued to side dump.12 Thus, on October 1, 1997, Director
Soriquez issued another letter,13 which reads:
We were informed by our field personnel that in spite of the field memo dated 29
September 1997 x x x issued to your Engineer at the 28 [diameter] dredger and
followed by a letter dated 30 September 1997 by Jose C. Gabriel, Engineer IV of this
office, your 28 [diameter] dredger
_______________
7 Id., at p. 56.
8 Id., at pp. 56 and 95.
9 Id., at p. 96.
10 Id., at p. 97.
11 Id.
12 Id., at p. 56.
13 Id., at p. 98.
199
VOL. 771, SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 199
presently operating near the town proper of Sasmuan, is still dredging through side
dumping.
Please be informed that side dumping activities in the area is not allowed which this
office has previously informed your end thru our letter of 18 August 1997. There is still
an available spoil site where spoils could be dumped thru distance pumping and the
other one is the Regala spoil site, which has to be developed as previously instructed
based on our previous letters.14
Still, petitioner ignored the prohibition and continued to side dump.15

When the project was in its final phase of completion, petitioner, through its
President, Mr. Wenceslao Zingapan, wrote a letter16dated October 15, 1997 to then
DPWH Secretary Gregorio Vigilar (Secretary Vigilar) asking for payment for the
dredging work it rendered. In the letter, petitioner explained that it was forced to
side dump the dredge spoils along the project waterway for the following reasons:
1.0) The strong and heavy siltation if not avoided will ground our 28 Dredge and
the grounding will render the equipment inutile for a considerable time beyond
the contract despite the application of extraneous salvaging measures, and
2.0) Even if the extraordinary effort of the Project Implementing Office shall be
factored in the provision and making available to us the needed spoil site, the
Regala Property which was presented to us for development of a dike thereon,
is a mere 2-hectare size and in our long experience in shallow river dredging, is
uneconomical, unsafe and inoperable for utilization as an effective dumping
site. If the development of the Regala property is pursued, the
_______________
14 Id.
15 Id., at p. 56.
16 Id., at pp. 99-100.
200
disproportionate heavy pressure pumping induced by our huge deep sea 28
Dredge will cause a dangerous spillage back to the middle of the waterway. The
resultant volume equivalent to the containment capacity of the 2-hectare size
Regala property will create a dike-like [blockade] transversal to the length of the
waterway. Navigation and commerce along the waterway then will be put to
standstill.17
On October 24, 1997, Director Soriquez issued a letter18informing petitioner of the

denial of its request for payment. He said:
Please be informed that side dumping of your [dredge] spoils between Sta. 15+000 to
Sta. 14+000 was not allowed by this Office thru our letters of August 18, 1997 and
October 1, 1997 to your end. The strong and heavy siltations you are mentioning at the
vicinity of Sta. 14+000 (mouth of San Pedro Creek) was not too alarming, since the flow
of the floodwaters and siltations coming from the confluence of Pasig-Potrero River is
x x x going downstream through San Francisco River at Minalin, as a result of the
heavy rains caused by typhoon Ibiang and not at Guagua River and San Pedro Creek.
The siltations at the subject section were already there since the breaching of the
transverse dike.
Furthermore, with respect to spoil site availability, you have two (2) alternatives: a]
Utilize Pascual A spoil site, thru distance pumping wherein the volume of 50,000 cu.
m. of silt materials could still be accommodated, and b] Utilize Regala fishpond, even
with only two (2) hectares in area, can contain at least 60,000 cu. m. of dredge
spoils, the same area as the spoil site at Malusac portion (S3-1) that you have used
previously using your 25 dia. Dredger.
_______________
17 Id., at p. 99.
18 Id., at p. 101.
201
VOL. 771, SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 201
In view of the above, we cannot recommend any compensation for the volume of silt materials
side dumped based on your letter of October 15, 1997.19
When the project was completed, respondent DPWH paid petitioner the total
amount of P180,029,910.15, covered by various disbursement vouchers.20 The amount
of P7,354,897.10, representing the 165,576.27 cubic meters dredging work rendered
by petitioner, however, was not paid.21
On June 18, 1998, the Director III of the Legal Service of DPWH, Mr. Cesar D.
Mejia, issued a Memorandum22 to Director Soriquez expressing his position that
petitioner should be paid for work accomplished as shown in the As-Built Plans and
the Statement of Work Accomplished without the necessity of issuing a variation
order.
On January 4, 2000, then DPWH Secretary Vigilar wrote a letter stating that the
agency will no longer entertain any request for reconsideration on the subject
matter.23 Petitioner, however, continued to demand payment for the said dredging
works.
On February 24, 2005, former DPWH Acting Secretary Hermogenes E. Ebdane,
Jr. (Secretary Ebdane, Jr.) issued Department Order No. 51, creating an Ad
Hoc Committee to further evaluate the payment claim of petitioner.24
On October 5, 2005, the Committee rendered a Resolution25recommending
payment of the claim in the amount of P7,354,897.91 provided petitioner restores to
its original grade elevation the section where dredge spoils were dumped.
_______________
19 Id.
20 Id., at p. 20.
21 Id., at p. 21.
22 Id., at p. 151.
23 Id., at p. 56.
24 Id., at p. 152.
25 Id., at pp. 153-157.
202
One of the members of the Committee, Regional Director Ramon P. Aquino (Regional
Director Aquino), DPWH-Region III, San Fernando City, Pampanga, however, did not
agree with the recommendation and maintained that petitioner is not entitled to
payment for breach of contract.26 And since Secretary Ebdane, Jr. likewise did not
agree with the Resolution, he resolved to return the same to the Committee for
reevaluation.27
On December 8, 2006, the DPWH Ad Hoc Committee rendered an amended
Resolution,28 to wit:
WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT PAYMENT
FOR THE CLAIM OF MOVERTRADE CORPORATION FOR WORK PERFORMED UNDER
THE DUTCH-FUNDED MT. PINATUBO AFFECTED WATERWAYS PROJECT SHALL BE
GRANTED PROVIDED THAT THE IMPLEMENTING OFFICE SHALL DETERMINE THE
AMOUNT OF PAYMENT DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR.29
Regional Director Aquino and Secretary Ebdane, Jr., however, did not sign the
amended Resolution as they did not agree with the recommendation.30
On July 14, 2009, petitioner offered a reduction of P300,000.00 on its claim if
payment is made within a month.31
On January 22, 2010, Assistant Secretary Dimas S. Soguilon, the Chairman of the
Extraordinary Claims and Review Committee, DPWH, issued a Memorandum
finding
_______________
26 Id., at p. 57.
27 Id.
28 Id., at pp. 165-170.
29 Id., at p. 170.
30 Id., at p. 57.
31 Id.
203
VOL. 771, SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 203
petitioners claim for payment to be a money claim, which is under the jurisdiction of
respondent COA.32
Accordingly, on February 19, 2010, petitioner filed with respondent COA a money
claim against respondent DPWH for payment of dredging works with side dumping
of spoils in Pampanga Bay and the primary Pasac-Guagua-San Fernando Waterways
in Pampanga amounting to P7,354,897.10.33
Ruling of the Commission on Audit
On December 29, 2011, respondent COA rendered Decision No. 2011-106 denying
the money claim34 of petitioner for lack of merit.35 Respondent COA ruled that
petitioner is not entitled to payment for the dredging works for breach of
contract.36 Paragraph 11 of the Contract Agreement prohibits side dumping as it
specifically requires that dredge spoils should be dumped at predesignated areas to
prevent them from spilling back into the channel.37 It also noted that petitioners
claim for payment was never approved by respondent DPWH as the Resolution and
amended Resolution issued by
_______________
32 Id.
33 Id., at pp. 42-46.
34 It is worthy to note that the project was commenced almost fifteen (15) years ago. For this reason,
the funding for the project had been reverted to the National Treasury as stated by the Chief, Cash Division,
DPWH-Office of the Secretary (OSEC), in a Certification dated August 8, 2010, that the outstanding balance
for the project amounting to P9,380,197.69 under DPWH Account No. 2028-90025-3, as of December 29,
1999, had lapsed on the first working day of FY 2000. A subsequent Certification dated August 19, 2010
was issued by the Cashier, DPWH, OSEC, that the said account was already closed effective November 8,
2002. Thus, contrary to the assertion of claimant, this petition falls under the concept of a money claim
against the government (id., at p. 59).
35 Id., at p. 60.
36 Id., at pp. 59-60.
37 Id.
204
the DPWH Ad Hoc Committee were not signed by Secretary Ebdane, Jr.38
Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration39 insisting that there was no
breach of contract and that even if there was a breach, it is still entitled to payment
under the principle of quantum meruit.
On November 5, 2012, respondent COA issued a Resolution denying the motion
for reconsideration for lack of merit.40 It stood pat on its finding that there was a
breach of contract as the side dumping employed by petitioner was never authorized,
verbally or in writing.41 As to the principle of quantum meruit, respondent COA
explained that the principle applies only when there is no written contract between
the parties.42 In this case, since there is a written contract entered into by the parties,
the principle of quantum meruitcannot be applied.43 Thus, petitioner should bear the
loss for breaching the contract.44
Issue
Hence, petitioner filed the instant Petition raising the core issue of whether
petitioner is entitled to the payment of P7,354,897.10 for dredging works.
Petitioners Arguments
Petitioner ascribes grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent COA in

denying its money claim.45 It insists that it
_______________
38 Id., at p. 59.
39 Id., at pp. 62-79.
40 Id., at p. 83.
41 Id., at p. 82.
42 Id.
43 Id.
44 Id.
45 Id., at pp. 30 and 284.
205
VOL. 771, SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 205
did not violate paragraph 11 of the Contract Agreement and alleges it was respondent
DPWH who failed to provide adequate spoil sites.46 To substantiate its allegation,
petitioner cites Director Soriquezs letter47 dated June 6, 1997 addressed to the
Executive Director of the Mt. Pinatubo Commission, where Director Soriquez
mentioned that [petitioners] equipment can no longer continue the dredging works
due to nonavailability of spoil sites [as] the spoil sites being used in the area have
already been utilized to full capacity.48 This statement allegedly proves that
respondent DPWH knew that there were no available spoil sites left, which justifies
petitioners noncompliance with paragraph 11 of the Contract Agreement.49
Petitioner likewise denies side dumping the dredge spoil and claims that what it
did was actually free dumping, wherein the spoils during dredging were exposed to
strong current of the water and were carried away by it towards the mouth of Manila
Bay.50Although it admits that it used the term side dumping in its letters, it claims
that it was used to refer to a situation where the spoils are not being dumped at the
spoil sites.51 In any case, petitioner claims that despite the method of disposal used,
the waterways remained navigable except for minimal siltation when the DPWH
engineers inspected the subject waterways.52 And since the dredging works benefited
the public and the government, petitioner asserts that it is entitled to its money claim
in the highest interest of justice and equity.53
_______________
46 Id., at pp. 30 and 280-292.

47 Id., at pp. 93-94.
48 Id., at pp. 34 and 282.
49 Id., at pp. 30-35 and 284.
50 Id., at pp. 30-32 and 290.
51 Id., at pp. 32 and 291.
52 Id., at pp. 31-32 and 290.
53 Id., at p. 36.
206
Respondents Arguments
Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), contend that
respondent COA committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying the money claim
because petitioner in disposing the dredge spoils through side dumping violated
paragraph 11 of the Contract Agreement.54 They maintain that respondent DPWH
provided adequate spoil sites and that assuming that these were insufficient,
petitioner should have ceased dredging operation in the meantime instead of
breaching the terms and conditions of the Contract Agreement.55 Also, petitioner is
not entitled to its money claim as a breach of contract cannot be the source of rights
or the basis of a cause of action.56 Moreover, the dredging work did not benefit the
government as side dumping, which entails dumping of dredge spoils back into the
river, goes against the very purpose for which the dredging works were done.57
Our Ruling
The Petition must fail.

Paragraph 11 of the Contract Agreement reads:
11. The disposal of dredge spoils shall be made at predesignated areas to be
provided by the OWNER, including land access as appropriate, to the
CONTRACTOR as follows:
In case of cutter suction dredge or other similar type with pipeline

discharge, the disposal area shall be within a maximum distance of 500
meters
_______________
54 Id., at pp. 361-363.

55 Id., at p. 363.
56 Id., at pp. 363-364; citing Twin Towers Condominium Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 446 Phil. 280, 308;
398 SCRA 203, 221 (2003).
57 Id., at pp. 364-365.
207
VOL. 771, SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 207
beyond which the CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to additional payment
at [the] rate of P3.00 per cu. m. per 500 meters increment, but the total
discharge distance shall not exceed 2,000 meters.
The CONTRACTOR shall develop and maintain the disposal areas during
use and, together with the OWNERS representative shall monitor and
evaluate their effectiveness, to ensure that discharges thereof, into the
primary waterway, are minimized.58
Under the said provision, petitioner should dispose of the dredge spoils by dumping
them at the predesignated areas provided by respondent DPWH. Petitioner should
also develop and maintain the designated disposal areas during use. Petitioner,
however, failed to comply with the said provision as it opted to side dump 165,576.27
cubic meters of dredge spoils back to the river. To justify its action, petitioner claims
that respondent DPWH failed to provide adequate spoil sites.
We do not agree.
It is evident from the records that respondent DPWH provided spoil sites to
petitioner. Director Soriquez, in his letters dated August 18, 1997 and October 1,
1997, specifically mentioned Pascual A, Pascual B, and the Regala fishpond as
designated spoil sites. Engr. Bustos, in his letter dated September 29, 1997, also
reminded petitioner of the available spoil sites. These letters clearly show that
contrary to the claim of petitioner, respondent DPWH complied with its obligation to
provide spoil sites.
Petitioner, however, contends that these letters contradict Director Soriquezs
earlier letter dated June 6, 1997 addressed to the Executive Director of the Mt.
Pinatubo Commission. In the said letter, Director Soriquez was requesting the Mt.
Pinatubo Commission to issue a certification to the OSG to confirm the availability
of funds for the expropriation
_______________
58 Id., at p. 88.
208
of certain properties as the spoil sites being used have already been utilized to full
capacity.59
At first glance, the letter dated June 6, 1997 issued by Director Soriquez seems to
contradict his subsequent letters. But a careful review of the records leads us to
believe otherwise. First of all, when Director Soriquez informed petitioner that there
were still available spoil sites, he cited the report of Engr. Bustos as basis. Thus, it is
possible that at the time Director Soriquez issued the letter dated June 6, 1997, he
was not aware that there were still available spoil sites in some other areas and that
it was only after he received the report of Engr. Bustos that he became aware of the
availability of said spoil sites. And considering that petitioners request for side
dumping was made on August 13, 1997 or more than two months after Director
Soriquez wrote to Executive Director Fernando, it is also possible that during that
span of time, respondent DPWH was able to look for other possible spoil sites. In fact,
in the Memorandum dated December 17, 1999 addressed to then DPWH Secretary
Vigilar, Director Soriquez explained that:
A. The spoil sites referred to in the subject communications of the contractor with a total
of 30.2 hectares, such as the 10 hectares of Mrs. Olivia Pascual, 7.7. hectares of P.
Santos, et al., and the 12.5 hectares of F. Gutierrez, did not materialize due to funding
constraint. However, a written instruction was issued to the contractor to utilize further
the existing 5.0 hectares of Mrs. Olivia Pascual adjacent to the 10.0 hectares owned also
by Mrs. Pascual, the 2 hectares owned by Mr. Regala and the Mangalindan/Manansala
property with an area of 3 hectares. The combined total area of 10 hectares for the 3 spoil
sites could accommodate 168,517 cu. m. The total side
_______________
59 Id., at p. 93.
209
VOL. 771, SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 209
dumping volume is 165,000 cu. m. The contractor was given ample time to develop these
spoil sites to contain the [dredge] volume but unfortunately they insisted on side dumping
because they lack sufficient pipelines for distance pumping with an allocation of P20
Million in the Contract Agreement. Such provision was purposely provided in the contract
in the event distance pumping would be required but the contractor never availed of this
provision and undertook side dumping activities without first obtaining the approval of
the DPWH.60
In view of the foregoing, we find petitioners contention untenable as the letter dated
June 6, 1997 does not necessarily contradict the subsequent letters issued by Director
Soriquez.
Neither can petitioner justify the breach by merely alleging that the spoil sites
provided by respondent DPWH were inadequate, uneconomical, unsafe, and
inoperable.61 To begin with, no evidence was presented to support these allegations.
And even if true, petitioner failed to inform respondent DPWH of these problems. In
fact, after receiving Director Soriquezs letter dated August 18, 1997 denying its
request to side dump the dredge spoils, petitioner did not ask for a reconsideration
nor did it issue any letter questioning the capacity of the designated spoil sites.
Instead, it was only after the dredge spoils were side dumped or when petitioner was
already following up its claim for payment that it explained in writing its reasons for
side dumping.62
Respondent DPWH, on the other hand, consistently prohibited side dumping as
reiterated in the letters dated September 29, 1997 and October 1, 1997 issued by
Engr. Bustos and Director Soriquez, respectively. However, notwithstanding the
prohibition, petitioner continued with its side dumping activities without any
explanation. Petitioners blatant defiance of the prohibition on side dumping is a
violation of the contract that should not be ignored just because petitioner was able
to complete the project.
_______________
60 Id., at pp. 81-82.

61 Id., at p. 99.
62 Id.
210
It is a basic principle in law that contracts have the force of law between the parties
and should be complied with in good faith.63 In this case, the contract specifically
provides the manner of disposing dredge spoils. Thus, petitioner cannot unilaterally
change the manner of disposal without first amending the contract or obtaining the
express consent or approval of respondent DPWH. Otherwise, petitioner would be
guilty of breaching the contract. [A] breach occurs where the contractor inexcusably
fails to perform substantially in accordance with the terms of the contract.64Without
a doubt, petitioners failure to dump the dredge spoils at the designated spoil sites
constitutes a breach.
As a last-ditch effort, petitioner for the first time claims that the dredge spoils were
not side dumped but were freely dumped. Petitioners attempt to split hairs between
side dumping and free dumping is unavailing as both are not allowed under
paragraph 11 of the Contract Agreement. It makes no difference whether petitioner
performed side dumping or free dumping activities considering that in both instances,
dredge spoils are not dumped at spoil sites. What is crucial is the admission of
petitioner that it did not dump the dredge spoils at the designated spoil sites but
dumped them back into the river.65 The act of dumping dredge spoils back into the
river clearly violates paragraph 11 of the Contract Agreement. And as aptly explained
by respondent COA:
Furthermore, in the engineering point of view, for purposes of improving the discharge
capacity of the channel, dredging through side dumping is not a sound engineering
practice. The purpose of predesignated spoil sites is to provide containment of the
[dredge]
_______________
63 Gonzales v. Phil. Commercial and International Bank, 659 Phil. 244, 261; 644 SCRA 180, 193 (2011).
64 J Plus Asia Development Corporation v. Utility Assurance Corporation, G.R. No. 199650, June 26,
2013, 700 SCRA 134, 156.
65 Rollo, p. 32.
211
VOL. 771, SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 211
spoils to ensure that the same will not flow back into the channel, otherwise
government funds would be wasted because of faulty dredging procedure.
(Memorandum dated October 23, 2001 of OIC-Project Director Amando R. Ramirez, MPE-
PMO, DPWH)66 (Emphasis supplied)
Considering that the dredge spoils were dumped back into the river, we cannot be
certain, as pointed out by the OSG, that the government benefited from petitioners
165,576.27 cubic meters dredging work. And it would be unfair to allow petitioner to
benefit from its breach. Besides, petitioner cannot claim that it was not duly
compensated for the services it rendered as the amount of P7,354,897.10 is only a
part of the P188,698,000.00 contract. In fact, petitioner admits that it was already
paid the amount of P180,029,910.15.67 Thus, we agree with respondent COA that
petitioner is not entitled to its money claim for the 165,576.27 cubic meters dredging
work as it was done in contravention of paragraph 11 of the Contract Agreement.
All told, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent COA in
denying petitioners money claim as the evidence on record undoubtedly supports the
factual findings of respondent COA. We need not belabor that in the absence of grave
abuse of discretion, the decisions and resolutions of respondent COA are accorded not
only with respect but also with finality, not only on the basis of the doctrine of
separation of powers, but also of its presumed expertise in the laws it is entrusted to
enforce.68
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The
assailed December 29, 2011 Decision and
_______________
66 Id., at pp. 59-60.

67 Id., at p. 20.
68 Yap v. Commission on Audit, 633 Phil. 174, 195; 619 SCRA 154, 174 (2010).
212
the November 5, 2012 Resolution of respondent Commission on Audit are
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr.,
Perez and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Brion, J., On Leave.
Peralta, J., No part.
Mendoza, J., On Official Leave.
Reyes, J., On Leave.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., On Official Leave.
Jardeleza, J., No part.
Petition dismissed, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.Under Section 2, Rule 64 of the Revised Rule of Civil Procedure, a
judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on Audit may be brought by
the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65. (Verzosa, Jr.
vs. Carague, 644 SCRA 679 [2011])
Decisions and orders of the Commission on Audit (COA) rendered in its quasi-
judicial capacity are reviewable by the court via a petition for certiorari and not those
promulgated under its quasi-legislative or rule-making powers. (Dela Llana vs. The
Chairperson, Commission on Audit, 665 SCRA 176 [2012])

Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr. and Brion, JJ., concur.
Judgment and resolution affirmed.
Note.Equitable mortgage is a contract thatalthough lacking the formality, the
form or words or other requisites demanded by a statutenevertheless reveals the
intention of the parties to burden a piece of real property as security for a debt.
(Cirelos vs. Hernandez, 490 SCRA 625 [2006])
o0o
G.R. Nos. 171947-48. December 18, 2008.*

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS,1 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND
HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, PHILIPPINE
COAST GUARD, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE MARITIME GROUP, and
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
petitioners, vs. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, represented and
joined by DIVINA V. ILAS, SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUEL SANTOS, JR.,
DINAH DELA PEA, PAUL DENNIS QUINTERO, MA. VICTORIA LLENOS,
DONNA CALOZA, FATIMA QUITAIN, VENICE SEGARRA, FRITZIE TANGKIA,
SARAH JOELLE LINTAG, HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS BOBIS, FELIMON SAN-
TIAGUEL, and JAIME AGUSTIN R. OPOSA, respondents.
Remedial Law; Mandamus; Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the execution
of a ministerial duty; Mandamus is available to compel action, when refused, on matters
involving discretion, but not to direct the
_______________
* EN BANC.
1 Now the Department of Education (DepEd).
662
exercise of judgment or discretion one way or the other.The writ of mandamus lies to
require the execution of a ministerial duty. A ministerial duty is one that requires neither
the exercise of official discretion nor judgment. It connotes an act in which nothing is left to
the discretion of the person executing it. It is a simple, definite duty arising under conditions
admitted or proved to exist and imposed by law. Mandamus is available to compel action,
when refused, on matters involving discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or
discretion one way or the other.
Same; Same; Environmental Law; The Metropolitan Manila Development Authoritys
(MMDAs) duty to put up an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste and
liquid disposal as well as other alternative garbage disposal system is ministerial, its duty
being a statutory imposition.We wish to state that petitioners obligation to perform their
duties as defined by law, on one hand, and how they are to carry out such duties, on the other,
are two different concepts. While the implementation of the MMDAs mandated tasks may
entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what
the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus. We
said so in Social Justice Society v. Atienza, 517 SCRA 657 (2007), in which the Court directed
the City of Manila to enforce, as a matter of ministerial duty, its Ordinance No. 8027 directing
the three big local oil players to cease and desist from operating their business in the so-
called Pandacan Terminals within six months from the effectivity of the ordinance. But to
illustrate with respect to the instant case, the MMDAs duty to put up an adequate and
appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other alternative
garbage disposal systems is ministerial, its duty being a statutory imposition. The MMDAs
duty in this regard is spelled out in Sec. 3(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 7924 creating the
MMDA.
Same; Same; Same; The duty of putting up a proper waste disposal system cannot be
characterized as discretionary, for, as earlier stated, discretion presupposes the power or right
given by law to public functionaries to act officially according to their judgment or
conscience.The MMDAs duty in the area of solid waste disposal, as may be noted, is set
forth not only in the Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its charter as well.
This duty of putting up a proper waste disposal system cannot be characterized as
discretionary, for, as earlier stated, discretion presupposes the power or right given by law to
public functionaries to act officially according to their judgment or conscience. A discretionary
duty is one that allows a person to exercise judgment and choose to perform or not to
perform. Any suggestion that663
, 663
the MMDA has the option whether or not to perform its solid waste disposal-related
duties ought to be dismissed for want of legal basis.
Same; Same; Same; These government agencies are enjoined, as a matter of statutory
obligation, to perform certain functions relating directly or indirectly to the cleanup,
rehabilitation, protection and preservation of the Manila Bay.A perusal of other petitioners
respective charters or like enabling statutes and pertinent laws would yield this conclusion:
these government agencies are enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation, to perform
certain functions relating directly or indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and
preservation of the Manila Bay. They are precluded from choosing not to perform these
duties.
Same; Same; Same; Section 17 of PD 1152 does not in any way state that the government
agencies concerned ought to confine themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning
operations when a specific pollution incident occurs.Respondents are correct. For one thing,
said Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the government agencies concerned ought to
confine themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning operations when a specific
pollution incident occurs. On the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the absence
of a specific pollution incident, as long as water quality has deteriorated to a degree where
its state will adversely affect its best usage. This section, to stress, commands concerned
government agencies, when appropriate, to take such measures as may be necessary to meet
the prescribed water quality standards. In fine, the underlying duty to upgrade the quality
of water is not conditional on the occurrence of any pollution incident.
Same; Same; Same; The complementary Sec. 17 of the Environment Code comes into play
and the specific duties of the agencies to clean up come in even if there are no pollution
incidents staring at them.A perusal of Sec. 20 of the Environment Code, as couched,
indicates that it is properly applicable to a specific situation in which the pollution is caused
by polluters who fail to clean up the mess they left behind. In such instance, the concerned
government agencies shall undertake the cleanup work for the polluters account. Petitioners
assertion, that they have to perform cleanup operations in the Manila Bay only when there
is a water pollution incident and the erring polluters do not undertake the containment,
removal, and cleanup operations, is quite off mark. As earlier discussed, the complementary
Sec. 17 of the Environment Code comes into play and the specific duties of the agencies to
clean up come in even if there are no pollution incidents staring at them. Petitioners, thus,
cannot plausibly invoke and hide behind Sec. 20 of664
PD 1152 or Sec. 16 of RA 9275 on the pretext that their cleanup mandate depends on
the happening of a specific pollution incident.
Same; Same; Same; Sec. 16 of RA 9275, previously Sec. 20 of PD 1152, covers for all
intents and purposes a general cleanup situation.Not to be ignored of course is the reality
that the government agencies concerned are so undermanned that it would be almost
impossible to apprehend the numerous polluters of the Manila Bay. It may perhaps not be
amiss to say that the apprehension, if any, of the Manila Bay polluters has been few and far
between. Hence, practically nobody has been required to contain, remove, or clean up a given
water pollution incident. In this kind of setting, it behooves the Government to step in and
undertake cleanup operations. Thus, Sec. 16 of RA 9275, previously Sec. 20 of PD 1152, covers
for all intents and purposes a general cleanup situation.
Same; Same; Same; Different government agencies and instrumentalities cannot shirk
from their mandates, they must perform their basic functions in cleaning up and
rehabilitating the Manila Bay.The era of delays, procrastination, and ad hoc measures is
over. Petitioners must transcend their limitations, real or imaginary, and buckle down to
work before the problem at hand becomes unmanageable. Thus, we must reiterate that
different government agencies and instrumentalities cannot shirk from their mandates; they
must perform their basic functions in cleaning up and rehabilitating the Manila Bay. We are
disturbed by petitioners hiding behind two untenable claims: (1) that there ought to be a
specific pollution incident before they are required to act; and (2) that the cleanup of the bay
is a discretionary duty.
Environmental Law; Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal provision
specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay, they and the men and women
representing them cannot escape their obligation to future generations of Filipinos to keep the
waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible.So it was that in Oposa v.
Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792 (1993), the Court stated that the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology need not even be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other
civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of
mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational implications.
Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal provision specifically prodding petitioners
to clean up the bay, they and the men and women representing them cannot escape their
obligation to future generations of Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and
clear as humanly as possible. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust reposed in them.
665
, 665
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for petitioners.
Antonio A. Oposa, Jr. and Fortun, Narvasa and Salazar for respondents.
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The need to address environmental pollution, as a cause of climate change, has of
late gained the attention of the international community. Media have finally trained
their sights on the ill effects of pollution, the destruction of forests and other critical
habitats, oil spills, and the unabated improper disposal of garbage. And rightly so, for
the magnitude of environmental destruction is now on a scale few ever foresaw and
the wound no longer simply heals by itself.2But amidst hard evidence and clear signs
of a climate crisis that need bold action, the voice of cynicism, naysayers, and
procrastinators can still be heard.
This case turns on government agencies and their officers who, by the nature of
their respective offices or by direct statutory command, are tasked to protect and
preserve, at the first instance, our internal waters, rivers, shores, and seas polluted
by human activities. To most of these agencies and their official complement, the
pollution menace does not seem to carry the high national priority it deserves, if their
track records are to be the norm. Their cavalier attitude towards solving, if not
mitigating, the environmental pollution problem, is a sad commentary on
bureaucratic efficiency and commitment.
At the core of the case is the Manila Bay, a place with a proud historic past, once
brimming with marine life and, for so many decades in the past, a spot for different
contact recreation activities, but now a dirty and slowly dying expanse mainly
because of the abject official indifference of people and institutions that could have
otherwise made a difference.
_______________
2 Gore, An Inconvenient Truth 161.

666
This case started when, on January 29, 1999, respondents Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite
against several government agencies, among them the petitioners, for the cleanup,
rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay. Raffled to Branch 20 and docketed
as Civil Case No. 1851-99 of the RTC, the complaint 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. This
environmental aberration, the complaint stated, stemmed from:
x x x [The] reckless, wholesale, accumulated and ongoing acts of omission or commission
[of the defendants] resulting in the clear and present danger to public health and in the
depletion and contamination of the marine life of Manila Bay, [for which reason] ALL
defendants must be held jointly and/or solidarily liable and be collectively ordered to clean
up Manila Bay and to restore its water quality to class B waters fit for swimming, skin-diving,
and other forms of contact recreation.3
In their individual causes of action, respondents alleged that the continued neglect
of petitioners in abating the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of,
among others:
(1) Respondents constitutional right to life, health, and a balanced ecology;
(2) The Environment Code (PD 1152);
(3) The Pollution Control Law (PD 984);
(4) The Water Code (PD 1067);
(5) The Sanitation Code (PD 856);
(6) The Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree (PD 825);
(7) The Marine Pollution Law (PD 979);
(8) Executive Order No. 192;
(9) The Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law (Republic Act No. 6969);
(10) Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations;
(11) The Trust Doctrine and the Principle of Guardianship; and
(12) International Law
_______________
3 Rollo, p. 74.
667
, 667
Inter alia, respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, prayed that petitioners be ordered to

clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for
the purpose.
The trial of the case started off with a hearing at the Manila Yacht Club followed
by an ocular inspection of the Manila Bay. Renato T. Cruz, the Chief of the Water
Quality Management Section, Environmental Management Bureau, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), testifying for petitioners, stated that
water samples collected from different beaches around the Manila Bay showed that
the amount of fecal coliform content ranged from 50,000 to 80,000 most probable
number (MPN)/ml when what DENR Administrative Order No. 34-90 prescribed as
a safe level for bathing and other forms of contact recreational activities, or the SB
level, is one not exceeding 200 MPN/100 ml.4
Rebecca de Vera, for Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) and
in behalf of other petitioners, testified about the MWSS efforts to reduce pollution
along the Manila Bay through the Manila Second Sewerage Project. For its part, the
Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) presented, as part of its evidence, its memorandum
circulars on the study being conducted on ship-generated waste treatment and
disposal, and its Linis Dagat (Clean the Ocean) project for the cleaning of wastes
accumulated or washed to shore.
The RTC Ordered Petitioners to Clean Up
and Rehabilitate Manila Bay
On September 13, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision5 in favor of respondents. The
dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, finding merit in the complaint, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the
abovenamed defendant-government agencies, jointly and solidarily, to clean up and
rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its waters to SB classification to make it fit for
swimming, skin-diving and other forms of contact recreation. To attain this, defendant-
agencies, with defendant DENR as the lead agency, are directed, within six (6) months from
receipt
4 Id., at p. 53.
5 Id., at pp. 109-123. Penned by Executive Judge Lucenito N. Tagle (now retired Court of Appeals Justice).
668
hereof, to act and perform their respective duties by devising a consolidated, coordinated and
concerted scheme of action for the rehabilitation and restoration of the bay.
In particular:
Defendant MWSS is directed to install, operate and maintain adequate [sewerage]
treatment facilities in strategic places under its jurisdiction and increase their capacities.
Defendant LWUA, to see to it that the water districts under its wings, provide, construct
and operate sewage facilities for the proper disposal of waste.
Defendant DENR, which is the lead agency in cleaning up Manila Bay, to install, operate
and maintain waste facilities to rid the bay of toxic and hazardous substances.
Defendant PPA, to prevent and also to treat the discharge not only of ship-generated
wastes but also of other solid and liquid wastes from docking vessels that contribute to the
pollution of the bay.
Defendant MMDA, to establish, operate and maintain an adequate and appropriate
sanitary landfill and/or adequate solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other alternative
garbage disposal system such as re-use or recycling of wastes.
Defendant DA, through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, to revitalize the
marine life in Manila Bay and restock its waters with indigenous fish and other aquatic
animals.
Defendant DBM, to provide and set aside an adequate budget solely for the purpose of
cleaning up and rehabilitation of Manila Bay.
Defendant DPWH, to remove and demolish structures and other nuisances that obstruct
the free flow of waters to the bay. These nuisances discharge solid and liquid wastes which
eventually end up in Manila Bay. As the construction and engineering arm of the
government, DPWH is ordered to actively participate in removing debris, such as carcass of
sunken vessels, and other non-biodegradable garbage in the bay.
Defendant DOH, to closely supervise and monitor the operations of septic and sludge
companies and require them to have proper facilities for the treatment and disposal of fecal
sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks.
Defendant DECS, to inculcate in the minds and hearts of the people through education
the importance of preserving and protecting the environment.669
, 669
Defendant Philippine Coast Guard and the PNP Maritime Group, to protect at all costs
the Manila Bay from all forms of illegal fishing.
No pronouncement as to damages and costs.
SO ORDERED.
The MWSS, Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), and PPA filed before
the Court of Appeals (CA) individual Notices of Appeal which were eventually
consolidated and docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 76528.
On the other hand, the DENR, Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH), Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), Philippine Coast
Guard (PCG), Philippine National Police (PNP) Maritime Group, and five other
executive departments and agencies filed directly with this Court a petition for review
under Rule 45. The Court, in a Resolution of December 9, 2002, sent the said petition
to the CA for consolidation with the consolidated appeals of MWSS, LWUA, and PPA,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 74944.
Petitioners, before the CA, were one in arguing in the main that the pertinent
provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only to the cleaning of specific
pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. And apart from raising
concerns about the lack of funds appropriated for cleaning purposes, petitioners also
asserted that the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be
compelled by mandamus.
The CA Sustained the RTC
By a Decision6 of September 28, 2005, the CA denied petitioners appeal and
affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto, stressing that the trial courts decision did
not require petitioners to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions under
existing laws.7
Petitioners are now before this Court praying for the allowance of their Rule 45
petition on the following ground and supporting arguments:
_______________
6 Id., at pp. 47-58. Penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De Los Santos and concurred in by Associate
Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria and Jose C. Reyes, Jr.
7 Id., at p. 52.
670
THE [CA] DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT HERETOFORE PASSED

UPON BY THE HONORABLE COURT, I.E., IT AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURTS
DECISION DECLARING THAT SECTION 20 OF [PD] 1152 REQUIRES CONCERNED
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO REMOVE ALL POLLUTANTS SPILLED AND
DISCHARGED IN THE WATER SUCH AS FECAL COLIFORMS.
ARGUMENTS
I
[SECTIONS] 17 AND 20 OF [PD] 1152 RELATE ONLY TO THE CLEANING OF
SPECIFIC POLLUTION INCIDENTS AND [DO] NOT COVER CLEANING IN GENERAL
II
THE CLEANING OR REHABILITATION OF THE MANILA BAY IS NOT A
MINISTERIAL ACT OF PETITIONERS THAT CAN BE COMPELLED BY MANDAMUS.
The issues before us are two-fold. First, do 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? And second, can petitioners be compelled by mandamus to clean up and
rehabilitate the Manila Bay?
On August 12, 2008, the Court conducted and heard the parties on oral arguments.
Our Ruling
We shall first dwell on the propriety of the issuance of mandamusunder the
premises.
The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay
Can be Compelled by Mandamus
Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial
duty.8 A ministerial duty is one that requires neither the exercise of official
discretion nor judgment.9 It connotes an act in
_______________
8 Angchangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 122728, February 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 301, 306.
9 Blacks Law Dictionary (8th ed., 2004).
671
, 671
which nothing is left to the discretion of the person executing it. It is a simple,
definite duty arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist and imposed by
law.10 Mandamus is available to compel action, when refused, on matters involving
discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion one way or the
other.
Petitioners maintain that the MMDAs duty to take measures and maintain
adequate solid waste and liquid disposal systems necessarily involves policy
evaluation and the exercise of judgment on the part of the agency concerned. They
argue that the MMDA, in carrying out its mandate, has to make decisions, including
choosing where a landfill should be located by undertaking feasibility studies and cost
estimates, all of which entail the exercise of discretion.
Respondents, on the other hand, counter that the statutory command is clear and
that petitioners duty to comply with and act according to the clear mandate of the
law does not require the exercise of discretion. According to respondents, petitioners,
the MMDA in particular, are without discretion, for example, to choose which bodies
of water they are to clean up, or which discharge or spill they are to contain. By the
same token, respondents maintain that petitioners are bereft of discretion on whether
or not to alleviate the problem of solid and liquid waste disposal; in other words, it is
the MMDAs ministerial duty to attend to such services.
We agree with respondents.
First off, we wish to state that petitioners obligation to perform their duties as
defined by law, on one hand, and how they are to carry out such duties, on the other,
are two different concepts. While the implementation of the MMDAs mandated tasks
may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of
doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled
by mandamus. We said so in Social Justice Society v. Atienza11 in which the Court
directed the City of Manila to enforce, as a matter of ministerial duty, its Ordinance
No. 8027 directing the
_______________
10 Lamb v. Phipps, 22 Phil. 456, 490 (1912).

11 G.R. No. 156052, March 7, 2007, 517 SCRA 657, as subsequently reiterated on February 13, 2008.
672
three big local oil players to cease and desist from operating their business in the so-
called Pandacan Terminals within six months from the effectivity of the ordinance.
But to illustrate with respect to the instant case, the MMDAs duty to put up an
adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal as well
as other alternative garbage disposal systems is ministerial, its duty being a
statutory imposition. The MMDAs duty in this regard is spelled out in Sec. 3(c) of
Republic Act No. (RA) 7924 creating the MMDA. This section defines and delineates
the scope of the MMDAs waste disposal services to include:
Solid waste disposal and management which include formulation and implementation of
policies, standards, programs and projects for proper and sanitary waste disposal. It shall
likewise include the establishment and operation of sanitary land fill and related
facilities and the implementation of other alternative programs intended to reduce, reuse
and recycle solid waste. (Emphasis added.)
The MMDA is duty-bound to comply with Sec. 41 of the Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act (RA 9003) which prescribes the minimum criteria for the
establishment of sanitary landfills and Sec. 42 which provides the minimum
operating requirements that each site operator shall maintain in the operation of a
sanitary landfill. Complementing Sec. 41 are Secs. 36 and 37 of RA 9003,12 enjoining
the MMDA and local government units, among others, after the effectivity of the law
on February 15, 2001, from using and operating open dumps for solid waste and
disallowing, five years after such effectivity, the use of controlled dumps.
The MMDAs duty in the area of solid waste disposal, as may be noted, is set forth
not only in the Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its charter as well.
This duty of putting up a proper waste disposal system cannot be characterized as
discretionary, for, as earlier stated, discretion presupposes the power or right given
by law to public functionaries to act officially according to their judgment or
conscience.13 A discretionary duty is one that allows a person
_______________
12 RA 9003 was approved on January 26, 2001.

13 2 Feria Noche, Civil Procedure Annotated.
673
, 673
to exercise judgment and choose to perform or not to perform.14Any suggestion that

the MMDA has the option whether or not to perform its solid waste disposal-related
duties ought to be dismissed for want of legal basis.
A perusal of other petitioners respective charters or like enabling statutes and
pertinent laws would yield this conclusion: these government agencies are enjoined,
as a matter of statutory obligation, to perform certain functions relating directly or
indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of the Manila
Bay. They are precluded from choosing not to perform these duties. Consider:
(1) The DENR, under Executive Order No. (EO) 192,15 is the primary agency
responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper use of the
countrys environment and natural resources. Sec. 19 of the Philippine Clean Water
Act of 2004 (RA 9275), on the other hand, designates the DENR as the primary
government agency responsible for its enforcement and implementation, more
particularly over all aspects of water quality management. On water pollution, the
DENR, under the Acts Sec. 19(k), exercises jurisdiction over all aspects of water
pollution, determine[s] its location, magnitude, extent, severity, causes and effects
and other pertinent information on pollution, and [takes] measures, using available
methods and technologies, to prevent and abate such pollution.
The DENR, under RA 9275, is also tasked to prepare a National Water Quality
Status Report, an Integrated Water Quality Management Framework, and a 10-year
Water Quality Management Area Action Plan which is nationwide in scope covering
the Manila Bay and adjoining areas. Sec. 19 of RA 9275 provides:
Sec. 19. Lead Agency.The [DENR] shall be the primary government agency
responsible for the implementation and enforcement of this Act x x x unless otherwise
provided herein. As such, it shall have the following functions, powers and responsibilities:
_______________
14 Blacks Law Dictionary (8th ed., 2004).

15 Providing for the Reorganization of the [DENR], Renaming it as the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, and for Other Purposes.
674
a) Prepare a National Water Quality Status report within twenty-four (24) months
from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That the Department shall thereafter review
or revise and publish annually, or as the need arises, said report;
b) Prepare an Integrated Water Quality Management Framework within twelve
(12) months following the completion of the status report;
c) Prepare a ten (10) year Water Quality Management Area Action Plan within 12
months following the completion of the framework for each designated water
management area. Such action plan shall be reviewed by the water quality
management area governing board every five (5) years or as need arises.
The DENR has prepared the status report for the period 2001 to 2005 and is in the
process of completing the preparation of the Integrated Water Quality Management
Framework.16 Within twelve (12) months thereafter, it has to submit a final Water
Quality Management Area Action Plan.17 Again, like the MMDA, the DENR should
be made to accomplish the tasks assigned to it under RA 9275.
Parenthetically, during the oral arguments, the DENR Secretary manifested that
the DENR, with the assistance of and in part-nership with various government
agencies and non-government organizations, has completed, as of December 2005, the
final draft of a comprehensive action plan with estimated budget and time frame,
denominated as Operation Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy, for the
rehabilitation, restoration, and rehabilitation of the Manila Bay.
The completion of the said action plan and even the implementation of some of its
phases should more than ever prod the concerned agencies to fast track what are
assigned them under existing laws.
(2) The MWSS, under Sec. 3 of RA 6234,18 is vested with jurisdiction, supervision,
and control over all waterworks and sewerage sys-
16 Per DENR Secretary Jose Atienza, the DENR is preparing an EO for the purpose. TSN of oral
arguments, p. 118.
17 Per information from the Water Quality Management Section, Environmental Management Bureau,
DENR, as validated by the DENR Secretary during the oral arguments. TSN, pp. 119-120.
18 An Act Creating the [MWSS] and Dissolving the National Waterworks and Sewerage
Authority [NAWASA]; and for Other Purposes.
675
, 675
tems in the territory comprising what is now the cities of Metro Manila and several
towns of the provinces of Rizal and Cavite, and charged with the duty:
(g) To construct, maintain, and operate such sanitary sewerages as may be necessary for
the proper sanitation and other uses of the cities and towns comprising the System; x x x
(3) The LWUA under PD 198 has the power of supervision and control over local
water districts. It can prescribe the minimum standards and regulations for the
operations of these districts and shall monitor and evaluate local water standards.
The LWUA can direct these districts to construct, operate, and furnish facilities and
services for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewerage, waste, and storm
water. Additionally, under RA 9275, the LWUA, as attached agency of the DPWH, is
tasked with providing sewerage and sanitation facilities, inclusive of the setting up
of efficient and safe collection, treatment, and sewage disposal system in the different
parts of the country.19 In relation to the instant petition, the LWUA is mandated to
provide sewerage and sanitation facilities in Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga,
and Bataan to prevent pollution in the Manila Bay.
(4) The Department of Agriculture (DA), pursuant to the Administrative Code of
1987 (EO 292),20 is designated as the agency tasked to promulgate and enforce all
laws and issuances respecting the conservation and proper utilization of agricultural
and fishery resources. Furthermore, the DA, under the Philippine Fisheries Code of
1998
_______________
19 Sec. 22. Linkage Mechanism.The [DENR] and its concerned attached agencies x x x shall
coordinate and enter into agreement with other government agencies, industrial sector and other concerned
sectors in the furtherance of the objectives of this Act. The following agencies shall perform the functions
specified hereunder:
xxxx
b) DPWH through its attached agencies, such as the MWSS, LWUA, and including other urban water
utilities for the provision or sewerage and sanitation facilities and the efficient and safe collection, treatment
and disposal of sewage within their area of jurisdiction.
20 Book IV, Title IV, Sec. 2.
676
(RA 8550), is, in coordination with local government units (LGUs) and other
concerned sectors, in charge of establishing a monitoring, control, and surveillance
system to ensure that fisheries and aquatic resources in Philippine waters are
judiciously utilized and managed on a sustainable basis.21 Likewise under RA 9275,
the DA is charged with coordinating with the PCG and DENR for the enforcement of
water quality standards in marine waters.22 More specifically, its Bureau of Fisheries
and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) under Sec. 22(c) of RA 9275 shall primarily be
responsible for the prevention and control of water pollution for the development,
management, and conservation of the fisheries and aquatic resources.
(5) The DPWH, as the engineering and construction arm of the national
government, is tasked under EO 29223 to provide integrated
_______________
21 Sec. 14. Monitoring Control and Surveillance of the Philippine Waters.A monitoring, control and
surveillance system shall be established by the [DA] in coordination with LGUs and other agencies
concerned to ensure that the fisheries and aquatic resources in the Philippine waters are judiciously and
wisely utilized and managed on a sustainable basis x x x.
22 Sec. 22. Linkage Mechanism.x x x x
a) Philippine Coast Guard in coordination with DA and DENR shall enforce for the enforcement of
water quality standards in marine waters x x x specifically from offshore sources;
xxxx
c) DA, shall coordinate with the DENR, in the formulation of guidelines x x x for the prevention, control
and abatement of pollution from agricultural and aquaculture activities x x x Provided, further, That the x
x x (BFAR) of the DA shall be primarily responsible for the prevention and control of water pollution for the
development, management and conservation of the fisheries and aquatic resources.
23 Book IV, Title V, Sec. 2. Mandate.The [DPWH] shall be the States engineering arm and is tasked
to carry out the policy enumerated above [i.e., the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of
infrastructure facilities, especially x x x flood cntrol and water resources development systems].
Sec. 3. Powers and Functions.The Department, in order to carry out its mandate, shall:
xxxx
(2) Develop and implement effective codes, standards, and reasonable guidelines to ensure the safety of
all public and private structures in the
677
, 677
planning, design, and construction services for, among others, flood control and water
resource development systems in accordance with national development objectives
and approved government plans and specifications.
In Metro Manila, however, the MMDA is authorized by Sec. 3(d), RA 7924 to
perform metro-wide services relating to flood control and sewerage management
which include the formulation and implementation of policies, standards, programs
and projects for an integrated flood control, drainage and sewerage system.
On July 9, 2002, a Memorandum of Agreement was entered into between the
DPWH and MMDA, whereby MMDA was made the agency primarily responsible for
flood control in Metro Manila. For the rest of the country, DPWH shall remain as the
implementing agency for flood control services. The mandate of the MMDA and
DPWH on flood control and drainage services shall include the removal of structures,
constructions, and encroachments built along rivers, waterways,
and esteros (drainages) in violation of RA 7279, PD 1067, and other pertinent laws.
(6) The PCG, in accordance with Sec. 5(p) of PD 601, or the Revised Coast Guard
Law of 1974, and Sec. 6 of PD 979,24 or the Marine Pollution Decree of 1976, shall
have the primary responsibility of
_______________
country and assure efficiency and proper quality in the construction of public works;
(3) Ascertain that all public works plans and project implementation designs are consistent with current
standards and guidelines;
xxxx
(8) Provide an integrated planning for x x x flood control and water resource and water resource
development systems x x x.
24 Sec. 6. Enforcement and Implementation.The [PCG] shall have the primary responsibility of
enforcing the laws, rules and regulations governing marine pollution. However, it shall be the joint
responsibility of the [PCG] and the National Pollution Control Commission to coordinate and cooperate with
each other in the enforcement of the provisions of this decree and its implementing rules and regulations,
and may call upon any other government office, instrumentality or agency to extend every assistance in this
respect.
678
enforcing laws, rules, and regulations governing marine pollution within the
territorial waters of the Philippines. It shall promulgate its own rules and regulations
in accordance with the national rules and policies set by the National Pollution
Control Commission upon consultation with the latter for the effective
implementation and enforcement of PD 979. It shall, under Sec. 4 of the law,
apprehend violators who:
a. discharge, dump x x x harmful substances from or out of any ship, vessel, barge, or
any other floating craft, or other man-made structures at sea, by any method, means or
manner, into or upon the territorial and inland navigable waters of the Philippines;
b. throw, discharge or deposit, dump, or cause, suffer or procure to be thrown,
discharged, or deposited either from or out of any ship, barge, or other floating craft or vessel
of any kind, or from the shore, wharf, manufacturing establishment, or mill of any kind, any
refuse matter of any kind or description whatever other than that flowing from streets and
sewers and passing therefrom in a liquid state into tributary of any navigable water from
which the same shall float or be washed into such navigable water; and
c. deposit x x x material of any kind in any place on the bank of any navigable water or
on the bank of any tributary of any navigable water, where the same shall be liable to be
washed into such navigable water, either by ordinary or high tides, or by storms or floods, or
otherwise, whereby navigation shall or may be impeded or obstructed or increase the level of
pollution of such water.
(7) When RA 6975 or the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)
Act of 1990 was signed into law on December 13, 1990, the PNP Maritime Group was
tasked to perform all police functions over the Philippine territorial waters and
rivers. Under Sec. 86, RA 6975, the police functions of the PCG shall be taken over
by the PNP when the latter acquires the capability to perform such functions. Since
the PNP Maritime Group has not yet attained the capability to assume and perform
the police functions of PCG over marine pollution, the PCG and PNP Maritime Group
shall coordinate with regard to the enforcement of laws, rules, and regulations
governing marine pollution within the territorial waters of the Philippines. This was
made clear in Sec. 124, RA 8550 or the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, in which679
, 679
both the PCG and PNP Maritime Group were authorized to enforce said law and other
fishery laws, rules, and regulations.25
(8) In accordance with Sec. 2 of EO 513, the PPA is mandated to establish,
develop, regulate, manage and operate a rationalized national port system in support
of trade and national development.26 Moreover, Sec. 6-c of EO 513 states that the
PPA has police authority within the
ports administered by it as may be necessary to carry out its powers and functions and attain
its purposes and objectives, without prejudice to the exercise of the functions of the Bureau
of Customs and other law enforcement bodies within the area. Such police authority shall
include the following:
xxxx
b) To regulate the entry to, exit from, and movement within the port, of persons and
vehicles, as well as movement within the port of watercraft.27
Lastly, as a member of the International Marine Organization and a signatory to
the International Convention for the Prevention of
_______________
25 Sec. 124. Persons and Deputies Authorized to Enforce this Code x x x.The law enforcements of the
[DA], the Philippine Navy, [PCG, PNP], PNP-Maritime Command x x x are hereby authorized to enforce
this Code and other fishery laws x x x.
26 <http://www.ppa.com.ph> (visited November 20, 2008).
27 EO 513, Reorganizing the Philippine Ports Authority, Sec. 2 provides further:
Section 6 is hereby amended by adding a new paragraph to read as follows:
Sec. 6-c. Police Authority.x x x Such police authority shall include the following:
xxxx
c) To maintain peace and order inside the port, in coordination with local police authorities;
xxxx
e) To enforce rules and regulations promulgated by the Authority pursuant to law.
680
Pollution from Ships, as amended by MARPOL 73/78,28 the Philippines, through the
PPA, must ensure the provision of adequate reception facilities at ports and terminals
for the reception of sewage from the ships docking in Philippine ports. Thus, the PPA
is tasked to adopt such measures as are necessary to prevent the discharge and
dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila
Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators. When the
vessels are not docked at ports but within Philippine territorial waters, it is the PCG
and PNP Maritime Group that have jurisdiction over said vessels.
(9) The MMDA, as earlier indicated, is duty-bound to put up and maintain
adequate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal system as well as other
alternative garbage disposal systems. It is primarily responsible for the
implementation and enforcement of the provisions of RA 9003, which would necessary
include its penal provisions, within its area of jurisdiction.29
Among the prohibited acts under Sec. 48, Chapter VI of RA 9003 that are
frequently violated are dumping of waste matters in public places, such as roads,
canals or esteros, open burning of solid waste, squatting in open dumps and landfills,
open dumping, burying of biodegradable or non-biodegradable materials in flood-
prone areas, establishment or operation of open dumps as enjoined in RA 9003, and
operation of waste management facilities without an environmental compliance
certificate.
Under Sec. 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (RA 7279),
eviction or demolition may be allowed when persons or entities occupy danger areas
such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways,
and other public places
_______________
28 International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by
the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto.
29 Sec. 10. Role of LGUs in Solid Waste Management.Pursuant to the relevant provisions of RA No.
7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, the LGUs shall be primarily responsible for the
implementation and enforcement of the provisions of this Act within their respective jurisdictions.
681
, 681
such as sidewalks, roads, parks and playgrounds. The MMDA, as lead agency, in
coordination with the DPWH, LGUs, and concerned agencies, can dismantle and
remove all structures, constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA
7279 and other pertinent laws along the rivers, waterways, and esteros in Metro
Manila. With respect to rivers, waterways, and esteros in Bulacan, Bataan,
Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna that discharge wastewater directly or eventually into
the Manila Bay, the DILG shall direct the concerned LGUs to implement the
demolition and removal of such structures, constructions, and other encroachments
built in violation of RA 7279 and other applicable laws in coordination with the
DPWH and concerned agencies.
(10) The Department of Health (DOH), under Article 76 of PD 1067 (the Water
Code), is tasked to promulgate rules and regulations for the establishment of waste
disposal areas that affect the source of a water supply or a reservoir for domestic or
municipal use. And under Sec. 8 of RA 9275, the DOH, in coordination with the
DENR, DPWH, and other concerned agencies, shall formulate guidelines and
standards for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage and the establishment
and operation of a centralized sewage treatment system. In areas not considered as
highly urbanized cities, septage or a mix sewerage-septage management system shall
be employed.
In accordance with Sec. 7230 of PD 856, the Code of Sanitation of the Philippines,
and Sec. 5.1.131 of Chapter XVII of its implementing rules, the DOH is also ordered to
ensure the regulation and monitoring of the proper disposal of wastes by private
sludge companies
_______________
30 Sec. 72. Scope of Supervision of the Department.The approval of the Secretary or his duly
authorized representative is required in the following matters:
xxxx
(g) Method of disposal of sludge from septic tanks or other treatment plants.
31 Sec. 5.1.1.a. It shall be unlawful for any person, entity or firm to discharge untreated effluent of
septic tanks and/or sewage treatment plants to bodies of water without obtaining approval from the
Secretary of Health or his duly authorized representatives.
682
through the strict enforcement of the requirement to obtain an environmental

sanitation clearance of sludge collection treatment and disposal before these
companies are issued their environmental sanitation permit.
(11) The Department of Education (DepEd), under the Philippine Environment
Code (PD 1152), is mandated to integrate subjects on environmental education in its
school curricula at all levels.32 Under Sec. 118 of RA 8550, the DepEd, in collaboration
with the DA, Commission on Higher Education, and Philippine Information Agency,
shall launch and pursue a nationwide educational campaign to promote the
development, management, conservation, and proper use of the environment. Under
the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003), on the other hand, it is
directed to strengthen the integration of environmental concerns in school curricula
at all levels, with an emphasis on waste management principles.33
(12) The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) is tasked under Sec. 2,
Title XVII of the Administrative Code of 1987 to ensure the efficient and sound
utilization of government funds and revenues so as to effectively achieve the countrys
development objectives.34
_______________
32 Sec. 53. Environmental Education.The [DepEd] shall integrate subjects on environmental

education in its school curricula at all levels. It shall also endeavor to conduct special community education
emphasizing the relationship of man and nature as well as environmental sanitation and practices.
33 Sec. 56. Environmental Education in the Formal and Nonformal Sectors.The national
government, through the [DepEd] and in coordination with concerned government agencies, NGOs and
private institutions, shall strengthen the integration of environmental concerns in school curricula at all
levels, with particular emphasis on the theory and practice of waste management principles like waste
minimization, specifically resource conservation and recovery, segregation at source, reduction, recycling,
re-use, and composing, in order to promote environmental awareness and action among the citizenry.
34 Title XVII, Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy.The national budget shall be formulated and implemented
as an instrument of national development, reflective of national objectives and plans; supportive of and
consistent with
683
, 683
One of the countrys development objectives is enshrined in RA 9275 or the

Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004. This law stresses that the State shall pursue a
policy of economic growth in a manner consistent with the protection, preservation,
and revival of the quality of our fresh, brackish, and marine waters. It also provides
that it is the policy of the government, among others, to streamline processes and
procedures in the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution mechanisms for the
protection of water resources; to promote environmental strategies and use of
appropriate economic instruments and of control mechanisms for the protection of
water resources; to formulate a holistic national program of water quality
management that recognizes that issues related to this management cannot be
separated from concerns about water sources and ecological protection, water supply,
public health, and quality of life; and to provide a comprehensive management
program for water pollution focusing on pollution prevention.
Thus, the DBM shall then endeavor to provide an adequate budget to attain the
noble objectives of RA 9275 in line with the countrys development objectives.
All told, the aforementioned enabling laws and issuances are in themselves clear,
categorical, and complete as to what are the obligations and mandate of each
agency/petitioner under the law. We need not belabor the issue that their tasks
include the cleanup of the Manila Bay.
Now, as to the crux of the petition. Do Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code
encompass the cleanup of water pollution in general, not just specific pollution
incidents?
_______________
the socio-economic development plans and oriented towards the achievement of explicit objectives and
expected results, to ensure that the utilization of funds and operations of government entities are conducted
effectively; formulated within the context of a regionalized governmental structure and within the totality
of revenues and other receipts, expenditures and borrowings of all levels of government and of government-
owned or controlled corporations; and prepared within the context of the national long-term plans and
budget programs of the Government.
684
Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code

Include Cleaning in General
The disputed sections are quoted as follows:

Section 17. Upgrading of Water Quality.Where the quality of water has deteriorated
to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage, the government agencies
concerned shall take such measures as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of such water
to meet the prescribed water quality standards.
Section 20. Clean-up Operations.It shall be the responsibility of the polluter to
contain, remove and clean-up water pollution incidents at his own expense. In case of his
failure to do so, the government agencies concerned shall undertake containment, removal
and clean-up operations and expenses incurred in said operations shall be charged against
the persons and/or entities responsible for such pollution.
When the Clean Water Act (RA 9275) took effect, its Sec. 16 on the
subject, Cleanup Operations, amended the counterpart provision (Sec. 20) of the
Environment Code (PD 1152). Sec. 17 of PD 1152 continues, however, to be
operational.
The amendatory Sec. 16 of RA 9275 reads:
SEC. 16. Cleanup Operations.Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 15 and 26
hereof, any person who causes pollution in or pollutes water bodies in excess of the applicable
and prevailing standards shall be responsible to contain, remove and clean up any pollution
incident at his own expense to the extent that the same water bodies have been rendered
unfit for utilization and beneficial use: Provided, That in the event emergency cleanup
operations are necessary and the polluter fails to immediately undertake the same, the
[DENR] in coordination with other government agencies concerned, shall undertake
containment, removal and cleanup operations. Expenses incurred in said operations shall be
reimbursed by the persons found to have caused such pollution under proper administrative
determination x x x. Reimbursements of the cost incurred shall be made to the Water Quality
Management Fund or to such other funds where said disbursements were sourced.
As may be noted, the amendment to Sec. 20 of the Environment Code is more
apparent than real since the amendment, insofar as it is685
, 685
relevant to this case, merely consists in the designation of the DENR as lead agency
in the cleanup operations.
Petitioners contend at every turn that Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code
concern themselves only with the matter of cleaning up in specific pollution incidents,
as opposed to cleanup in general. They aver that the twin provisions would have to
be read alongside the succeeding Sec. 62(g) and (h), which defines the terms cleanup
operations and accidental spills, as follows:
g. Clean-up Operations [refer] to activities conducted in removing the pollutants
discharged or spilled in water to restore it to pre-spill condition.
h. Accidental Spills [refer] to spills of oil or other hazardous substances in water that
result from accidents such as collisions and groundings.
Petitioners proffer the argument that Secs. 17 and 20 of PD 1152 merely direct the
government agencies concerned to undertake containment, removal, and cleaning
operations of a specific polluted portion or portions of the body of water concerned.
They maintain that the application of said Sec. 20 is limited only to water pollution
incidents, which are situations that presuppose the occurrence of specific, isolated
pollution events requiring the corresponding containment, removal, and cleaning
operations. Pushing the point further, they argue that the aforequoted Sec. 62(g)
requires cleanup operations to restore the body of water to pre-spill condition, which
means that there must have been a specific incident of either intentional or accidental
spillage of oil or other hazardous substances, as mentioned in Sec. 62(h).
As a counterpoint, respondents argue that petitioners erroneously read Sec. 62(g) as
delimiting the application of Sec. 20 to the containment, removal, and cleanup
operations for accidental spills only. Contrary to petitioners posture, respondents
assert that Sec. 62(g), in fact, even expanded the coverage of Sec. 20. Respondents
explain that without its Sec. 62(g), PD 1152 may have indeed covered only pollution
accumulating from the day-to-day operations of businesses around the Manila Bay
and other sources of pollution that slowly accumulated in the bay. Respondents,
however, emphasize that Sec. 62(g), far from being a delimiting provision, in fact even
enlarged the686
operational scope of Sec. 20, by including accidental spills as among the water
pollution incidents contemplated in Sec. 17 in relation to Sec. 20 of PD 1152.
To respondents, petitioners parochial view on environmental issues, coupled with
their narrow reading of their respective mandated roles, has contributed to the
worsening water quality of the Manila Bay. Assuming, respondents assert, that
petitioners are correct in saying that the cleanup coverage of Sec. 20 of PD 1152 is
constricted by the definition of the phrase cleanup operations embodied in Sec.
62(g), Sec. 17 is not hobbled by such limiting definition. As pointed out, the phrases
cleanup operations and accidental spills do not appear in said Sec. 17, not even in
the chapter where said section is found.
Respondents are correct. For one thing, said Sec. 17 does not in any way state that
the government agencies concerned ought to confine themselves to the containment,
removal, and cleaning operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. On the
contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a specific pollution
incident, as long as water quality has deteriorated to a degree where its state will
adversely affect its best usage. This section, to stress, commands concerned
government agencies, when appropriate, to take such measures as may be necessary
to meet the prescribed water quality standards. In fine, the underlying duty to
upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the occurrence of any pollution
incident.
For another, a perusal of Sec. 20 of the Environment Code, as couched, indicates that
it is properly applicable to a specific situation in which the pollution is caused by
polluters who fail to clean up the mess they left behind. In such instance, the
concerned government agencies shall undertake the cleanup work for the polluters
account. Petitioners assertion, that they have to perform cleanup operations in the
Manila Bay only when there is a water pollution incident and the erring polluters do
not undertake the containment, removal, and cleanup operations, is quite off mark.
As earlier discussed, the complementary Sec. 17 of the Environment Code comes into
play and the specific duties of the agencies to clean up come in even if there are no687
, 687
pollution incidents staring at them. Petitioners, thus, cannot plausibly invoke and
hide behind Sec. 20 of PD 1152 or Sec. 16 of RA 9275 on the pretext that their cleanup
mandate depends on the happening of a specific pollution incident. In this regard,
what the CA said with respect to the impasse over Secs. 17 and 20 of PD 1152 is at
once valid as it is practical. The appellate court wrote: PD 1152 aims to introduce a
comprehensive program of environmental protection and management. This is better
served by making Secs. 17 & 20 of general application rather than limiting them to
specific pollution incidents.35
Granting arguendo that petitioners position thus described vis--vis the
implementation of Sec. 20 is correct, they seem to have overlooked the fact that the
pollution of the Manila Bay is of such magnitude and scope that it is well-nigh
impossible to draw the line between a specific and a general pollution incident. And
such impossibility extends to pinpointing with reasonable certainty who the polluters
are. We note that Sec. 20 of PD 1152 mentions water pollution incidents which may
be caused by polluters in the waters of the Manila Bay itself or by polluters in
adjoining lands and in water bodies or waterways that empty into the bay. Sec. 16 of
RA 9275, on the other hand, specifically adverts to any person who causes pollution
in or pollutes water bodies, which may refer to an individual or an establishment
that pollutes the land mass near the Manila Bay or the waterways, such that the
contaminants eventually end up in the bay. In this situation, the water pollution
incidents are so numerous and involve nameless and faceless polluters that they can
validly be categorized as beyond the specific pollution incident level.
Not to be ignored of course is the reality that the government agencies concerned
are so undermanned that it would be almost impossible to apprehend the numerous
polluters of the Manila Bay. It may perhaps not be amiss to say that the
apprehension, if any, of the Manila Bay polluters has been few and far between.
Hence, practically nobody has been required to contain, remove, or clean up a given
water pollution incident. In this kind of setting, it behooves the Gov-
_______________
35 Rollo, p. 76.
688
ernment to step in and undertake cleanup operations. Thus, Sec. 16 of RA 9275,

previously Sec. 20 of PD 1152, covers for all intents and purposes a general cleanup
situation.
The cleanup and/or restoration of the Manila Bay is only an aspect and the initial
stage of the long-term solution. The preservation of the water quality of the bay after
the rehabilitation process is as important as the cleaning phase. It is imperative then
that the wastes and contaminants found in the rivers, inland bays, and other bodies
of water be stopped from reaching the Manila Bay. Otherwise, any cleanup effort
would just be a futile, cosmetic exercise, for, in no time at all, the Manila Bay water
quality would again deteriorate below the ideal minimum standards set by PD 1152,
RA 9275, and other relevant laws. It thus behooves the Court to put the heads of the
petitioner-department-agencies and the bureaus and offices under them on
continuing notice about, and to enjoin them to perform, their mandates and duties
towards cleaning up the Manila Bay and preserving the quality of its water to the
ideal level. Under what other judicial discipline describes as
continuing mandamus,36 the Court may, under extraordinary circumstances, issue
directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decision would not be set to naught
by administrative inaction or indifference. In India, the doctrine of
continuing mandamus was used to enforce directives of the court to clean up the
length of the Ganges River from industrial and municipal pollution.37
The Court can take judicial notice of the presence of shanties and other
unauthorized structures which do not have septic tanks along the Pasig-Marikina-
San Juan Rivers, the National Capital Region (NCR) (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias)
Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the Meycuayan-Marilao-
Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the
Laguna De Bay, and other minor rivers and connecting waterways, river banks,
and esteros which discharge their waters, with all the accompanying filth, dirt, and
garbage, into the major rivers and even-
_______________
36 Vineet Narain v. Union of India, 1 SCC 226 (1998).

37 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 4 SC 463 (1987).
689
, 689
tually the Manila Bay. If there is one factor responsible for the pollution of the major
river systems and the Manila Bay, these unauthorized structures would be on top of
the list. And if the issue of illegal or unauthorized structures is not seriously
addressed with sustained resolve, then practically all efforts to cleanse these
important bodies of water would be for naught. The DENR Secretary said as much.38
Giving urgent dimension to the necessity of removing these illegal structures is
Art. 51 of PD 1067 or the Water Code,39 which prohibits the building of structures
within a given length along banks of rivers and other waterways. Art. 51 reads:
The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the seas and lakes
throughout their entire length and within a zone of three (3) meters in urban
areas, twenty (20) meters in agricultural areas and forty (40) meters in forest areas, along
their margins, are subject to the easement of public use in the interest of recreation,
navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage. No person shall be allowed to stay in this
zone longer than what is necessary for recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing or salvage
orto build structures of any kind. (Emphasis added)
Judicial notice may likewise be taken of factories and other industrial
establishments standing along or near the banks of the Pasig River, other major
rivers, and connecting waterways. But while they may not be treated as unauthorized
constructions, some of these establishments undoubtedly contribute to the pollution
of the Pasig River and waterways. The DILG and the concerned LGUs, have,
accordingly, the duty to see to it that non-complying industrial establishments set up,
within a reasonable period, the necessary waste water treatment facilities and
infrastructure to prevent their industrial discharge, including their sewage waters,
from flowing into the Pasig River, other major rivers, and connecting waterways.
After such period, non-complying establishments shall be shut down or asked to
transfer their operations.
_______________
38 TSN, p. 121.
39 Repealed Art. 638 of the Civil Code. See E.L. Pineda, Property 399 (1999).
690
At this juncture, and if only to dramatize the urgency of the need for petitioners-
agencies to comply with their statutory tasks, we cite the Asian Development Bank-
commissioned study on the garbage problem in Metro Manila, the results of which
are embodied in the The Garbage Book. As there reported, the garbage crisis in the
metropolitan area is as alarming as it is shocking. Some highlights of the report:
1. As early as 2003, three land-filled dumpsites in Metro Manilathe Payatas, Catmon
and Rodriquez dumpsitesgenerate an alarming quantity of lead and leachate or liquid run-
off. Leachate are toxic liquids that flow along the surface and seep into the earth and poison
the surface and groundwater that are used for drinking, aquatic life, and the environment.
2. The high level of fecal coliform confirms the presence of a large amount of human
waste in the dump sites and surrounding areas, which is presumably generated by
households that lack alternatives to sanitation. To say that Manila Bay needs rehabilitation
is an understatement.
3. Most of the deadly leachate, lead and other dangerous contaminants and possibly
strains of pathogens seeps untreated into ground water and runs into the Marikina and Pasig
River systems and Manila Bay.40
Given the above perspective, sufficient sanitary landfills should now more than
ever be established as prescribed by the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA
9003). Particular note should be taken of the blatant violations by some LGUs and
possibly the MMDA of Sec. 37, reproduced below:
Sec. 37. Prohibition against the Use of Open Dumps for Solid Waste.No open dumps
shall be established and operated, nor any practice or disposal of solid waste by any person,
including LGUs which [constitute] the use of open dumps for solid waste, be allowed after
the effectivity of this Act: Provided, further, That no controlled dumps shall be allowed
five (5) years following the effectivity of this Act. (Emphasis added.)
RA 9003 took effect on February 15, 2001 and the adverted grace period of five (5)
years which ended on February 21, 2006 has come
_______________
40 Asian Development Bank, The Garbage Book 44-45 (November 2006).

691
, 691
and gone, but no single sanitary landfill which strictly complies with the prescribed
standards under RA 9003 has yet been set up.
In addition, there are rampant and repeated violations of Sec. 48 of RA 9003, like
littering, dumping of waste matters in roads, canals, esteros, and other public places,
operation of open dumps, open burning of solid waste, and the like. Some sludge
companies which do not have proper disposal facilities simply discharge sludge into
the Metro Manila sewerage system that ends up in the Manila Bay. Equally unabated
are violations of Sec. 27 of RA 9275, which enjoins the pollution of water bodies,
groundwater pollution, disposal of infectious wastes from vessels, and unauthorized
transport or dumping into sea waters of sewage or solid waste and of Secs. 4 and 102
of RA 8550 which proscribes the introduction by human or machine of substances to
the aquatic environment including dumping/disposal of waste and other marine
litters, discharge of petroleum or residual products of petroleum of carbonaceous
materials/substances [and other] radioactive, noxious or harmful liquid, gaseous or
solid substances, from any water, land or air transport or other human-made
structure.
In the light of the ongoing environmental degradation, the Court wishes to
emphasize the extreme necessity for all concerned executive departments and
agencies to immediately act and discharge their respective official duties and
obligations. Indeed, time is of the essence; hence, there is a need to set timetables for
the performance and completion of the tasks, some of them as defined for them by
law and the nature of their respective offices and mandates.
The importance of the Manila Bay as a sea resource, playground, and as a
historical landmark cannot be over-emphasized. It is not yet too late in the day to
restore the Manila Bay to its former splendor and bring back the plants and sea life
that once thrived in its blue waters. But the tasks ahead, daunting as they may be,
could only be accomplished if those mandated, with the help and cooperation of all
civic-minded individuals, would put their minds to these tasks and take
responsibility. This means that the State, through petitioners, has to take the lead in
the preservation and protection of the Manila Bay.692
The era of delays, procrastination, and ad hoc measures is over. Petitioners must
transcend their limitations, real or imaginary, and buckle down to work before the
problem at hand becomes unmanageable. Thus, we must reiterate that different
government agencies and instrumentalities cannot shirk from their mandates; they
must perform their basic functions in cleaning up and rehabilitating the Manila Bay.
We are disturbed by petitioners hiding behind two untenable claims: (1) that there
ought to be a specific pollution incident before they are required to act; and (2) that
the cleanup of the bay is a discretionary duty.
RA 9003 is a sweeping piece of legislation enacted to radically transform and
improve waste management. It implements Sec. 16, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution,
which explicitly provides 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.
So it was that in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. the Court stated that the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology need not even be written in the Constitution for it is
assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist
from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with
intergenerational implications.41 Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal
provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay, they and the men and
women representing them cannot escape their obligation to future generations of
Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible.
Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust reposed in them.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 28, 2005 Decision of the
CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 76528 and SP No. 74944 and the September 13, 2002 Decision
of the RTC in Civil Case No. 1851-99 are AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATIONS in
view of subsequent developments or supervening events in the case. The fallo of the
RTC Decision shall now read:
_______________
41 G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993, 224 SCRA 792, 805.
693
, 693
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the abovenamed defendant-

government agencies to clean up, rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, and restore and
maintain its waters to SB level (Class B sea waters per Water Classification Tables under
DENR Administrative Order No. 34 [1990]) to make them fit for swimming, skin-diving, and
other forms of contact recreation.
In particular:
(1) Pursuant to Sec. 4 of EO 192, assigning the DENR as the primary agency
responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper use of the
countrys environment and natural resources, and Sec. 19 of RA 9275, designating
the DENR as the primary government agency responsible for its enforcement and
implementation, the DENR is directed to fully implement its Operational Plan for the
Manila Bay Coastal Strategy for the rehabilitation, restoration, and conservation of
the Manila Bay at the earliest possible time. It is ordered to call regular coordination
meetings with concerned government departments and agencies to ensure the
successful implementation of the aforesaid plan of action in accordance with its
indicated completion schedules.
(2) Pursuant to Title XII (Local Government) of the Administrative Code of 1987
and Sec. 25 of the Local Government Code of 1991,42 the DILG, in exercising the
Presidents power of general supervision and its duty to promulgate guidelines in
establishing waste management programs under Sec. 43 of the Philippine
Environment Code (PD 1152), shall direct all LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Laguna,
Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan to inspect all factories, commercial
establishments, and private homes along the banks of the major river systems in their
respective areas of jurisdiction, such as but not limited to the Pasig-Marikina-San
Juan Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-
Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the
Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the
_______________
42 Sec. 25. National Supervision over Local Government Units.(a) Consistent with the basic policy
on local autonomy, the President shall exercise general supervision over local government units to ensure
that their acts are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.
694
Laguna De Bay, and other minor rivers and waterways that eventually discharge
water into the Manila Bay; and the lands abutting the bay, to determine whether
they have wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks as prescribed by
existing laws, ordinances, and rules and regulations. If none be found, these LGUs
shall be ordered to require non-complying establishments and homes to set up said
facilities or septic tanks within a reasonable time to prevent industrial wastes,
sewage water, and human wastes from flowing into these rivers, waterways, esteros,
and the Manila Bay, under pain of closure or imposition of fines and other sanctions.
(3) As mandated by Sec. 8 of RA 9275,43 the MWSS is directed to provide, install,
operate, and maintain the necessary adequate waste water treatment facilities in
Metro Manila, Rizal, and Cavite where needed at the earliest possible time.
(4) Pursuant to RA 9275,44 the LWUA, through the local water districts and in
coordination with the DENR, is ordered to provide, install, operate, and maintain
sewerage and sanitation facilities and the efficient and safe collection, treatment, and
disposal of sewage in the provinces of Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and
Bataan where needed at the earliest possible time.
43 Sec. 8. Domestic Sewage Collection, Treatment and Disposal.Within five (5) years following the
effectivity of this Act, the Agency vested to provide water supply and sewerage facilities and/or
concessionaires in Metro Manila and other highly urbanized cities (HUCs) as defined in [RA] 7160, in
coordination with LGUs, shall be required to connect the existing sewage line found in all subdivisions,
condominiums, commercial centers, hotels, sports and recreational facilities, hospitals, market places,
public buildings, industrial complex and other similar establishments including households to available
sewerage system. Provided, That the said connection shall be subject to sewerage services charge/fees in
accordance with existing laws, rules or regulations unless the sources had already utilized their own
sewerage system: Provided, further, That all sources of sewage and septage shall comply with the
requirements herein.
44 Supra note 19.
695
, 695
(5) Pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 8550,45 the DA, through the BFAR, is ordered to
improve and restore the marine life of the Manila Bay. It is also directed to assist the
LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan in
developing, using recognized methods, the fisheries and aquatic resources in the
Manila Bay.
(6) The PCG, pursuant to Secs. 4 and 6 of PD 979, and the PNP Maritime Group,
in accordance with Sec. 124 of RA 8550, in coordination with each other, shall
apprehend violators of PD 979, RA 8550, and other existing laws and regulations
designed to prevent marine pollution in the Manila Bay.
(7) Pursuant to Secs. 2 and 6-c of EO 51346 and the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the PPA is ordered to immediately adopt such
measures to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other
ship-generated wastes into the Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and
apprehend the violators.
(8) The MMDA, as the lead agency and implementor of programs and projects for
flood control projects and drainage services in Metro Manila, in coordination with the
DPWH, DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, Housing and Urban
Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), and other agencies, shall dismantle
and remove all structures, constructions, and other encroachments established or
built in violation of RA 7279, and other applicable laws along the Pasig-Marikina-
San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias) Rivers, the Navotas-
Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and
_______________
45 Sec. 65. Functions of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.As a line bureau, the BFAR
shall have the following functions:
xxxx
q. assist the LGUs in developing their technical capability in the development, management,
regulation, conservation, and protection of fishery resources;
xxxx
s. perform such other related function which shall promote the development, conservation,
management, protection and utilization of fisheries and aquatic resources.
46 Supra notes 26 & 27.
696
connecting waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. The DPWH, as the principal
implementor of programs and projects for flood control services in the rest of the
country more particularly in Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna, in
coordination with the DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, HUDCC, and
other concerned government agencies, shall remove and demolish all structures,
constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other
applicable laws along the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay
(Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other rivers,
connecting waterways, and esteros that discharge wastewater into the Manila Bay.
In addition, the MMDA is ordered to establish, operate, and maintain a sanitary
landfill, as prescribed by RA 9003, within a period of one (1) year from finality of this
Decision. On matters within its territorial jurisdiction and in connection with the
discharge of its duties on the maintenance of sanitary landfills and like undertakings,
it is also ordered to cause the apprehension and filing of the appropriate criminal
cases against violators of the respective penal provisions of RA 9003,47 Sec. 27 of RA
9275 (the Clean Water Act), and other existing laws on pollution.
(9) The DOH shall, as directed by Art. 76 of PD 1067 and Sec. 8 of RA 9275,
within one (1) year from finality of this Decision, determine if all licensed septic and
sludge companies have the proper facilities for the treatment and disposal of fecal
sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks. The DOH shall give the companies, if
found to be non-complying, a reasonable time within which to set up the neces-
_______________
47 Among the prohibited and penalized acts under Sec. 48 of RA 9003 are: (1) littering and dumping of
waste matters in public places; (2) open burning of solid wastes; (3) squatting in open dumps and landfills;
(4) transporting and dumping in bulk of collected domestic, industrial, commercial and institutional wastes
in areas other than centers and facilities prescribed under the Act; (5) construction or operation of waste
management facilities without an Environmental Compliance Certificate; and (6) construction or operation
of landfills or any waste disposal facility on any aquifer, groundwater reservoir or watershed area.
697
, 697
sary facilities under pain of cancellation of its environmental sanitation clearance.

(10) Pursuant to Sec. 53 of PD 1152,48 Sec. 118 of RA 8550, and Sec. 56 of RA
9003,49 the DepEd shall integrate lessons on pollution prevention, waste
management, environmental protection, and like subjects in the school curricula of
all levels to inculcate in the minds and hearts of students and, through them, their
parents and friends, the importance of their duty toward achieving and maintaining
a balanced and healthful ecosystem in the Manila Bay and the entire Philippine
archipelago.
(11) The DBM shall consider incorporating an adequate budget in the General
Appropriations Act of 2010 and succeeding years to cover the expenses relating to the
cleanup, restoration, and preservation of the water quality of the Manila Bay, in line
with the countrys development objective to attain economic growth in a manner
consistent with the protection, preservation, and revival of our marine waters.
(12) The heads of petitioners-agencies MMDA, DENR, DepEd, DOH, DA, DPWH,
DBM, PCG, PNP Maritime Group, DILG, and also of MWSS, LWUA, and PPA, in
line with the principle of continuing mandamus, shall, from finality of this Decision,
each submit to the Court a quarterly progressive report of the activities undertaken
in accordance with this Decision.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (C.J.), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-
Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Nachura and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Corona and Brion JJ., On Leave.
Leonardo-De Castro, J., On Official Leave.
_______________
48 Supra note 32.

49 Supra note 33.

Digest Sept 28

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest Sept 28

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 204835. September 22, 2015.

1 Civil Code, Art. 1159.

On February 7, 1996, petitioner and respondent Department of Public Works and

The Mount Pinatubo Emergency-Project Management Office of respondent

Still, petitioner ignored the prohibition and continued to side dump.15

On October 24, 1997, Director Soriquez issued a letter18informing petitioner of the

Ruling of the Commission on Audit

Petitioner ascribes grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent COA in

46 Id., at pp. 30 and 280-292.

The Petition must fail.

In case of cutter suction dredge or other similar type with pipeline

54 Id., at pp. 361-363.

60 Id., at pp. 81-82.

66 Id., at pp. 59-60.

G.R. Nos. 171947-48. December 18, 2008.*

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

2 Gore, An Inconvenient Truth 161.

Inter alia, respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, prayed that petitioners be ordered to

THE [CA] DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT HERETOFORE PASSED

10 Lamb v. Phipps, 22 Phil. 456, 490 (1912).

12 RA 9003 was approved on January 26, 2001.

to exercise judgment and choose to perform or not to perform.14Any suggestion that

14 Blacks Law Dictionary (8th ed., 2004).

through the strict enforcement of the requirement to obtain an environmental

32 Sec. 53. Environmental Education.The [DepEd] shall integrate subjects on environmental

One of the countrys development objectives is enshrined in RA 9275 or the

Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code

The disputed sections are quoted as follows:

ernment to step in and undertake cleanup operations. Thus, Sec. 16 of RA 9275,

36 Vineet Narain v. Union of India, 1 SCC 226 (1998).

40 Asian Development Bank, The Garbage Book 44-45 (November 2006).

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the abovenamed defendant-

sary facilities under pain of cancellation of its environmental sanitation clearance.

48 Supra note 32.

You might also like