Case Digest (G.R. No. 246209)
Facts:
On April 16, 2019, Petitioners led by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and numerous fisherfolk filed a petition under A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC seeking issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus concerning Panatag (Scarborough), Panganiban (Mischief) and Ayungin (Second Thomas) shoals, relying on the Permanent Court of Arbitration's July 12, 2016 Arbitral Award and alleging respondents' failure to enforce Philippine environmental laws. Respondents included the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Philippine Navy, Philippine Coast Guard, Philippine National Police, and Department of Justice; the Court issued a writ on May 3, 2019 and respondents filed a verified return contesting procedural and substantive sufficiency. During the proceedings numerous fisherfolk executed affidavits disowning the petition, counsel moved to withdraw the petition and partly to withdraw as counsels, the Court required further efforts to contact clients, and on September 3, 2019 the Court granted the Motion to Withdraw the Petition and dismissed the case without passing on any substantive issues while sternly warning petitioners' counsels.
Issues:
- Should the Motion to Withdraw the petition for writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus be granted?
- May petitioners' counsels withdraw their representation without written client consent or other good cause?
- Did the petition satisfy the procedural and evidentiary requisites for issuance of a writ of kalikasan and a writ of continuing mandamus?
Ruling:
The Court granted the Motion to Withdraw the petition and considered the petition withdrawn as to all fisherfolk-petitioners, and the case was dismissed without passing upon any of the substantive issues raised. The Court declined to permit wholesale abandonment of representation; it required counsels to exert further efforts to contact clients, refused to allow withdrawal that would leave petitioners unrepresented, and sternly warned counsel for professional lapses.
Ratio:
The Court emphasized that the writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy under Rule 7, Section 1 that issues only upon proof of (a) an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, (b) arising from an unlawful act or omission, and (c) involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice inhabitants of two or more cities or provinces, and that petitions must comply with Rule 7, Section 2 including verified allegations and supporting judicial affidavits and evidence. The Court also reiterated that a writ of continuing mandamus under Rule 8, Section 1 requires a prima facie showing of unlawful neglect of a duty specifically enjoined by law and that courts should not substitute judicial remedies for political or diplomatic avenues; finally, withdrawal of counsel is governed by Rule 138, Section 26 and Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which do not count mere difficulty in contacting clients as automatic good cause to abandon representation.
Doctrine:
- The writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy and issues only upon satisfaction of the requisites in Rule 7, Section 1.
- Petitions for a writ of kalikasan must include verified allegations and supporting judicial affidavits and evidence as required by Rule 7, Section 2.
- A writ of continuing mandamus requires a prima facie showing of unlawful neglect as set forth in Rule 8, Section 1.
- The writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus do not supplant political, diplomatic, or administrative remedies.
- An attorney may withdraw only with the client's written consent or for *good cause* under Rule 138, Section 26 and Canon 22, and inability to contact a client without diligent alternative measures is not per se good cause to abandon representation.