View full case

SPECIAL PEOPLE v. NESTOR M. CANDA

FACTS:

The petitioner is a proponent of a water-resource development project in Barangay Jimilia-an, Loboc, Bohol. The petitioner applied for a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) to be exempted from an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) requirement. The Chief of EMB in Bohol determined that the project was in a critical area, requiring an Initial Environmental Examination and proof of social acceptability. The petitioner appealed to the EMB Region 7 Director, who initially notified compliance with review procedures but later required additional documents. The Director stated that once all certifications were complied, the petitioner would be issued a Certificate of Non-Coverage. The petitioner failed to secure a certification from the RO-MGB stating that the project area was not on a fault line or critical slope, resulting in the project being declared within an environmentally critical area and the denial of the Certificate of Non-Coverage. The petitioner filed a petition for mandamus and damages in the RTC, which was dismissed. The petitioner raised issues regarding the duty to issue the CNC, exhaustion of administrative remedies, and entitlement to damages.

The DENR Secretary argued that the petition raised questions of fact not proper in a petition for review. They claimed that the petitioner should have appealed to the CA under Rule 41 and that the grant or denial of a CNC application cannot be compelled by mandamus. They further contended that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

The Court ruled that the appeal directly to the Court was improper under Rule 45 since the petition raised a question of fact that was decisive in the appeal. The Court denied due course to the petition for review. The Court also emphasized that in the exercise of its power of review, it does not re-examine the evidence presented during trial unless there is a showing of arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the RTC was proper.

  2. Whether the petition for mandamus was the correct recourse.

  3. Whether the petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies rendered its resort to mandamus in the RTC premature.

  4. Whether mandamus was the proper remedy for the petitioner to compel the grant of its application for the CNC.

  5. Whether the issuance of an environmental compliance certificate (ECC) or a certificate of non-coverage (CNC) involves the exercise of judgment and discretion by the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) Director or Regional Director.

  6. Whether the petitioner satisfactorily complied with the requirement to submit the needed certifications for the ECC/CNC application.

  7. Whether or not the petitioner complied with the fundamental requisites for mandamus.

  8. Whether or not the petition for review on certiorari should be granted.

RULING:

  1. The appeal by certiorari is improper under Rule 45, Rules of Court, as the petitioner raised a question of fact whose resolution is decisive in this appeal. The Court is not a trier of facts and relies on the findings of the lower court, unless certain exceptions apply, which do not exist in this case. Therefore, the petition for review is denied for its lack of merit.

  2. The present recourse is dismissed because the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and failed to show that it was legally entitled to demand the performance of the act by the respondents. A party seeking court intervention in an administrative concern should first avail themselves of all available administrative processes. The administrative agency is in a better position to resolve questions within its expertise, and errors in resolution may be rectified by higher authorities. In this case, the petitioner did not appeal the decision to the appropriate authority within the administrative agency, as required by law. Hence, mandamus was an improper remedy.

  3. The petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies rendered its resort to mandamus in the RTC premature. Even assuming that the pending appeal with the DENR Secretary was related to the decision of RD Lipayon, the petitioner should have waited for the DENR Secretary to resolve the appeal in line with the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Mandamus is a remedy only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

  4. Mandamus was not the proper remedy for the petitioner to compel the grant of its application for the CNC. The petitioner did not establish that the grant of its application was purely ministerial in nature on the part of RD Lipayon.

  5. The grant or denial of an ECC/CNC application 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. They are tasked to determine whether the project or project area is classified as critical to the environment based on the documents submitted by the applicant.

  6. The petitioner failed to satisfactorily comply with the requirement to submit the needed certifications. It submitted no certification to prove that the project site was not within a critical slope. The certification from the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) showed that the project site had experienced an Intensity VII earthquake in 1990, which placed the site in the category of "areas frequently visited and/or hard-hit by natural calamities." Hence, the denial of the petitioner's ECC/CNC application was warranted.

  7. The petitioner failed to comply with the fundamental requisites for mandamus, rendering its petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) untenable and devoid of merit.

  8. The petition for review on certiorari is denied and the petitioner is ordered to pay the costs of the suit.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and normally does not re-examine the evidence presented by the parties during trial, relying on the findings of fact of the lower court, unless specific exceptions apply.

  • Parties should exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking court intervention in an administrative concern. The administrative agency is given the opportunity to dispose of the issues within its competence, as it is presumed to have the expertise in the subject matter. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies may result in the dismissal of the case.

  • The administrative authority has the power to review, approve, reverse, or modify acts and decisions of subordinate officials or units. In this regard, appeals should be filed with the proper authority within the administrative agency.

  • Principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies - Parties must exhaust all available administrative remedies before resorting to judicial remedies or actions.

  • Mandamus - Mandamus is a remedy only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is a proper remedy when the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial in nature.

  • The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is issued in extraordinary cases where usual modes of proceeding and forms of remedy are powerless to afford redress and there would be a failure of justice without its aid. It is used to compel action and coerce the performance of a pre-existing duty.

  • Mandamus will issue only when the petitioner has a clear legal right to the performance of the act sought to be compelled and the respondent has an imperative duty to perform the same. The petitioner bears the burden of showing the clear legal right and the corresponding compelling duty of the respondent.

  • Mandamus lies to compel the performance of purely ministerial acts or duties, not those that involve discretion or judgment. A ministerial act or duty is one that an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without exercising its own judgment.

  • Mandamus is a remedy commanding a public officer or tribunal to perform an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.

  • For mandamus to prosper, the following requisites must be present:

a. The applicant has a clear legal right to the act demanded;

b. The respondent has an imperative duty to perform the act or that there is a clear judicial duty to grant the requested relief;

c. No other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is available.