Case Digest (G.R. No. 183173) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In The Chairman and Executive Director, Palawan Council for Sustainable Development, and the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development v. Ejercito Lim, G.R. No. 183173, decided on August 24, 2016 under the 1987 Constitution, Messrs. Winston G. Arzaga and Vicente A. Sandoval, respectively Chairman and Executive Director of the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD), issued Administrative Order No. 00-05 on February 25, 2002, mandating that only PCSD-accredited carriers transport live fish from Palawan. The respondent, Ejercito Lim, doing business as Bonanza Air Services and represented by Capt. Ernesto Lim, continued non-scheduled air taxi operations without accreditation. After receiving guidance from the Air Transportation Office on September 4, 2002 that ATO-authorized carriers were common carriers exempt from PCSD accreditation, Lim persisted in service. The PCSD then issued Memorandum Circular No. 02, Series of 2002, penalizing unaccredited carriers, and on Oct Case Digest (G.R. No. 183173) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioners
- Messrs. Winston G. Arzaga (Executive Director) and Vicente A. Sandoval (Chairman) of the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD), the agency created under RA 7611 to implement the Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) for Palawan.
- PCSD is responsible for governance, implementation, and policy direction of the SEP.
- Respondent
- Ejercito Lim, operating as Bonanza Air Services, an ATO-authorized non-scheduled air taxi transporter of live fish from Palawan to traders.
- Claimed exemption from PCSD accreditation requirement as an ATO-authorized common carrier.
- Regulatory Issuances and Non-Compliance
- Administrative Order No. 00-05 (Feb. 25, 2002)
- Required accreditation by PCSD for all live-fish traders and carriers in Palawan.
- Enacted under RA 7611 to regulate live fish transport for environmental protection.
- ATO Communication (Sept. 4, 2002)
- Declared ATO-authorized carriers, including respondent, exempt from PCSD accreditation.
- PCSD Memorandum Circular No. 02, Series 2002
- Imposed sanctions (accreditation cancellation, perpetual disqualification) on unaccredited carriers.
- Court of Appeals Proceedings
- Notice of Violation and Show Cause Order (Oct. 2002)
- Charged respondent with 19 unauthorized flights; threatened a P50,000 fine.
- Respondent denied receipt and continued operations.
- Petition for Prohibition in CA
- CA issued a TRO and, after petitioners’ non-comment, a preliminary injunction upon bond.
- PCSD’s Counter-Measures
- Argued A.O. No. 00-05’s validity under RA 7611 and mootness due to Resolution No. 03-211 (Aug. 18, 2003) amending accreditation rules.
- Issued a supplemental show cause order (Sept. 9, 2003) for continued non-compliance.
- CA Decision (May 28, 2008)
- Granted prohibition petition; declared A.O. 00-05, Res. 03-211, and related orders null and void.
- Made injunction permanent; costs against petitioners.
- Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
- Sole issue: whether CA erred in invalidating PCSD issuances as beyond its authority under RA 7611.
Issues:
- Procedural Jurisdiction
- Did the CA have jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition against PCSD’s quasi-legislative issuances?
- Is prohibition the appropriate remedy to challenge the validity of administrative regulations?
- Substantive Authority
- Did A.O. No. 00-05 and Resolution No. 03-211 exceed PCSD’s delegated powers under RA 7611, Secs. 16 and 19?
- Did the CA misinterpret RA 7611’s limitations on PCSD’s rule-making authority?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)