Case Digest (G.R. No. 215988)
Facts:
Cordillera Global Network et al. v. Secretary Ramon J.P. Paje, G.R. No. 215988, April 10, 2019, Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are numerous residents and civil-society organizations of Baguio City (led by Cordillera Global Network) who challenged tree-cutting and earth-balling related to the expansion of SM City Baguio (within the SM Pines Resort Project), and respondents are the public officials who issued environmental and tree-cutting permits (including Secretary Ramon J.P. Paje, DENR, and EMB officials) and private respondents SM Investments Corporation, SM Prime Holdings, Inc., and Shopping Center Management Corporation.The factual sequence began with the original Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued on September 13, 2001 (ECC CAR0106-047-120) covering the SM Pines Resort Project and contemplating removal of about 112 trees. Construction of SM City Baguio was completed in November 2003; later, SM sought to expand the mall. In late 2010 and 2011 SM submitted documents to amend the ECC; the EMB-CAR requested further information about affected trees. On September 22, 2011 the DENR granted an amended ECC. On October 27, 2011 the DENR-CAR, with clearance from Secretary Paje, issued a tree-cutting and earth-balling permit for Benguet pine and Alnus trees subject to conditions (including public consultations and securing an ECC). The permit contemplated cutting 43 planted Alnus and earth-balling 139 Benguet pine and saplings (total contested: 182 trees).
On February 27, 2012 Cordillera Global Network filed Civil Case No. 7595-R for injunctive relief to enjoin cutting/earth-balling of 182 trees; SM proceeded to apply to begin earth-balling and on April 4, 2012 the DENR-CAR Regional Executive Director authorized the earth-balling. SM began earth-balling on April 9, 2012. Petitioners moved for a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) and on April 10, 2012 the trial court granted a 72-hour TEPO, later extended on April 13, 2012 to cover the pendency of the case; upon receipt SM ceased operations. Petitioners later filed a contempt petition (Civil Case No. 7626-R) and another group (Adajar et al.) filed Civil Case No. 7629-R; the cases were consolidated.
At trial the Regional Trial Court (Presiding Judge Antonio M. Esteves) dismissed the consolidated cases in its December 3, 2012 Decision. The RTC found petitioners had standing under transcendental importance but dismissed on procedural grounds for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and insufficient proof that cutting/earth-balling would cause irreparable environmental harm; it gave weight to respondents’ witnesses and mitigation measures and lifted the TEPO. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, Special Ninth Division, affirmed in a December 12, 2014 Decision, holding petitioners should have exhausted administrative remedies (the agency has technical expertise) and failed to rebut the presumption of regularity in official acts. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with this Court on March 6, 2015 and sought a Temporary Restraining Order; on March 24, 2015 the Supreme Court issued a TRO enjoining implementation of the expansion and cutting/balling of trees. The TRO was later modified on April 19, 2016 and remained in effect during proceedings; the parties filed comments and memoranda and the case was set for resolution.
Petitioners argued (inter alia) the Expansion Project was effectively a new project requiring a new ECC and an EIA, that the tree-cutting permit and amended ECC were irregular and violated zoning ordinances limiting build...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the Petition be dismissed for defective verification and certification against forum shopping?
- Does the Petition improperly raise questions of fact beyond Rule 45 review?
- Must the Petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or for invoking primary jurisdiction prematurely?
- Were the assailed permits (amended ECC and tree-cutting/earth-balling permit) validly and regularly issued, and was a separate ECC required for the removal/earth-balling of the additiona...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)