FACTS:
On September 15, 2011, petitioner, together with the parish priest of the Holy Infant Jesus Parish and the officers of Alyansa Laban sa Mina sa Matnog, filed a petition for continuing mandamus, damages and attorney's fees with the RTC of Sorsogon, docketed as Civil Case No. 2011-8338.
The petition contained the following pertinent allegations:
(1) Sometime in 2009, they protested the iron ore mining operations being conducted by Antones Enterprises, Global Summit Mines Development Corporation and TR Ore in Barangays Balocawe and Bon-ot Daco, located in the Municipality of Matnog, to no avail;
(2) Matnog is located in the southern tip of Luzon and there is a need to protect, preserve and maintain the geological foundation of the municipality;
(3) Matnog is susceptible to flooding and landslides, and confronted with the environmental dangers of flood hazard, liquefaction, ground settlement, ground subsidence and landslide hazard;
(4) After investigation, they learned that the mining operators did not have the required permit to operate;
(5) Sorsogon Governor Raul Lee and his predecessor Sally Lee issued to the operators a small-scale mining permit, which they did not have authority to issue;
(6) The representatives of the Presidential Management Staff and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), despite knowledge, did not do anything to protect the interest of the people of Matnog; and
(7) The respondents violated RA 7076 or the People's Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991.
Petitioners prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) The issuance of a writ commanding the respondents to immediately stop the mining operations in the Municipality of Matnog;
(b) The issuance of a temporary environment protection order or TEPO;
(c) The creation of an inter-agency group to undertake the rehabilitation of the mining site;
(d) Award of damages; and
(e) Return of the iron ore, among others.
The case was referred by the Executive Judge to the RTC of Sorsogon and was summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. Then, petitioner Dolot, went straight before this Court on pure questions of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is no final court decree, order or decision that the public officials allegedly failed to act on, which is a condition for the issuance of the writ of continuing mandamus.
RULING:
The concept of continuing mandamus was first introduced in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay. Under Rule 8 of the Rules, the writ of continuing mandamus enjoys a distinct procedure than that of ordinary civil actions for the enforcement/violation of environmental laws.
Similar with the procedures provided under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for special civil actions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules requires that the petition filed should be sufficient in form and substance before a court may take further action; otherwise, the court may dismiss the petition outright.
Courts must be cautioned, however, that the determination to give due course to the petition or dismiss it outright is an exercise of discretion that must be applied in a reasonable manner in consonance with the spirit of the law and always with the view in mind of seeing to it that justice is served.
The writ of continuing mandamus is a special civil action that may be availed of "to compel the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law". The petition should mainly involve an environmental and other related law, rule or regulation or a right therein. The RTC's mistaken notion on the need for a final judgment, decree or order is apparently based on the definition of the writ of continuing mandamus under Section 4, Rule 1 of the Rules, to wit:
(c) Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court in an environmental case directing any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to perform an act or series of acts decreed by final judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied.
The final court decree, order or decision erroneously alluded to by the RTC actually pertains to the judgment or decree that a court would eventually render in an environmental case for continuing mandamus and which judgment or decree shall subsequently become final.
Under the Rules, after the court has rendered a judgment in conformity with Rule 8, Section7 and such judgment has become final, the issuing court still retains jurisdiction over the case to ensure that the government agency concerned is performing its tasks as mandated by law and to monitor the effective performance of said tasks.
It is only upon full satisfaction of the final judgment, order or decision that a final return of the writ shall be made to the court and if the court finds that the judgment has been fully implemented, the satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in the court docket.
A writ of continuing mandamus, in essence, a command of continuing compliance with a final judgment as it "permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs mandated under the court's decision".
The Court, likewise, cannot sustain the argument that the petitioners should have first filed a case with the Panel of Arbitrators, which has jurisdiction over mining disputes under RA No. 7942.
The Court also finds that the RTC erred in ruling that the petition is infirm for failure to attach judicial affidavits. As provided under Rule 8, petition should be verified, contain supporting evidence and must be accompanied by sworn certification of non-forum shopping. There is nothing under this Rule that compels the inclusion of judicial affidavits, albeit not prohibited.
Wherefore, the petition is GRANTED. The Order and Resolution issued by the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Branch 53 are NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE.
No comments:
Post a Comment