Special People v. Canda

Special People, Inc v. Canda (RRZ) 3.
The petitioner appealed Canda’s findings to respondent EMB Region 7 Director

G.R. No. 160932; January 14, 2013 Bienvenido L. Lipayon (RD Lipayon), claiming that it should also be issued a CNC
Petitioners: Special People, Inc. Foundation, represented by its chairman, Roberto P. because the project was no different from the Loboc-Loay waterworks project of the
Cericos Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) that had recently been issued a
Respondents: Nestor M. Canda, Bievenido Lipa Yon, Julian D. Amador, Bohol CNC. RD Lipayon notified the petitioner that its documents substantially complied with
Provincial Chief, Regional Director, and National Director, respectively,Environmental the procedural aspects of the EMB’s review, and that the application was assigned
Management Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the EMB-DENR-7 Control No. CNC-02-080 for easy reference in case of follow-up and
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, all sued in both submission of additional requirements.
their official and private capacities. Later on, RD Lipayon informed the petitioner that an Initial Environmental Examination
document was required for the project due to its significant impact in the area.
Emergency Recit: Petitioner applied for a Certificate of Non Coverage before the EMB
for a water development project in Bohol and they sought exemption from the 4. RD Lipayon required the petitioner to submit the following documents to enable the
requirement of the ECC. The EMB requested them to furnish several certifications to EMB to determine whether the project was within an environmentally critical area or
support the application for exemption. Despite the certifications, the request was stil not. Petitioner submitted the documents, but was again denied an exemption, claiming
denied on the ground that the project was to be set in an environmentally critical area, that the area was indeed near a environmentally critical area.
thus the need for the ECC. The petitioners filed for mandamus before the RTC, which
was denied claiming that the EMB’s act was discretionary, and not ministerial. This was 5. The petitioner filed a petition for mandamus and damages in the RTC alleging that it
affirmed by the Supreme Court, saying that the denial of the ECC/CNC was not a purely was now entitled to a CNC as a matter of right after having complied with the
ministerial function, and thus, was out of the ambit of a mandamus. certification requirements; and that the EMB had earlier issued a CNC to the DPWH for
a similar waterworks project in the same area.
Doctrine: A key principle to be observed in dealing with petitions for mandamus is that
such extraordinary remedy lies to compel the performance of duties that are purely 6. RTC dismissed the petition for mandamus upon the following considerations,
ministerial in nature, not those that are discretionary. A purely ministerial act or duty namely: (1) PHIVOLCS certified that the project site had been subjected to an Intensity
is one that an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed VII earthquake in 1990; (2) the CNC issued by the EMB to a similar waterworks project
manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the of the DPWH in the same area was only for the construction of a unit spring box intake
exercise of its own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. The duty and pump house, and the DENR issued a cease and desist order relative to the
is ministerial only when its discharge requires neither the exercise of official discretion DPWH’s additional project to put up a water filtration plant therein; (3) the determination
or judgment. of whether an area was environmentally critical was a task that pertained to the EMB;
(4) the assignment of a control number by the EMB to the petitioner’s application did
Facts: not mean that the application was as good as approved; (5) the RTC would not interfere
1. The petitioner was a proponent of a water-resource development and utilization with the primary prerogative of the EMB to review the merits of the petitioner’s
project in Loboc, Bohol that would involve the tapping and purifying of water from the application for the CNC; and (6) there was already a pending appeal lodged with the
Loboc River, and the distribution of the purified water to the residents of Loboc and six DENR Secretary. Appeal was brought directly to the Court via petition for review on
other municipalities. The petitioner applied for a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) certiorari
with the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) seeking to be exempt from the
requirement of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) claiming: Issue/s:
a) The whole project simply involves tapping of water from the Loboc River, 1. Was Rule 45 the proper remedy? - NO
filtering and purifying it, and distributing the same to the consumers in the 2. Was mandamus the proper remedy? – NO (relevant phoez)
covered towns;
b) From the source to the filtration plant, then to the purifier stations, then Held:
finally to the consumers’ households, water flows through steel pipes; Issue 1
c) The filtration and purifying process employs the latest technology— This appeal by certiorari is being taken under Rule 45, Rules of Court, whose
"electrocatalytic"—internationally accepted for safety and environment Section 1 expressly requires that the petition shall raise only questions of law
friendliness; which must be distinctly set forth. Yet, the petitioner hereby raises a question
d) No waste is generated, as the electrocatalytic process dissolves all of fact whose resolution is decisive in this appeal. That issue of fact concerns
impurities in the water; whether or not the petitioner established that its project was not located in an
e) The project involves no destruction [n]or harm to the environment. On the environmentally critical area. For this reason, the Court is constrained to deny
other hand, it is environment friendly. due course to the petition for review.
2. The EMB denied the exemption request claiming that the project is located in a
critical area, and that the project is socially and politically sensitive.
Issue 2
The grant or denial of an application for ECC/CNC is not an act that is purely
ministerial in nature, but one that involves the exercise of judgment and
discretion by the EMB Director or Regional Director, who must determine
whether the project or project area is classified as critical to the environment
based on the documents to be submitted by the applicant.
RD Lipayon had not yet fully exercised his discretion with regard to the CNC
application when he made his finding. It is clear that his finding referred to the
"procedural requirements for review" only. He had still to decide on the
substantive aspect of the application, that is, whether the project and the
project area were considered critical to the environment. In fact, this was the
reason why RD Lipayon required the petitioner to submit certifications from
the various government agencies concerned. Surely, the required
certifications were not mere formalities, because they would serve as the
bases for his decision on whether to grant or deny the application.
Secondly, there is no sufficient showing that the petitioner satisfactorily
complied with the requirement to submit the needed certifications. For one, it
submitted no certification to the effect that the project site was not within a
critical slope. Also, the PHIVOLCS’s certification showed that the project site
had experienced an Intensity VII earthquake in 1990, a fact that sufficed to
place the site in the category of "areas frequently visited and/or hard-hit by
natural calamities." Clearly, the petitioner failed to establish that it had the
legal right to be issued the CNC applied for, warranting the denial of its
application.
Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review
on certiorari; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit. SO ORDERED.

Special People v. Canda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special People v. Canda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Special People v. Canda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special People, Inc v. Canda (RRZ) 3.

The petitioner appealed Canda’s findings to respondent EMB Region 7 Director

You might also like