Case Digest (G.R. No. 197878)
Facts:
Gemma C. Dela Cruz et al. v. Manila Electric Company (MERALCO), G.R. No. 197878, November 10, 2020, Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are a group of residents of Barangay 183, Zone 20, Villamor, Pasay City and adjacent Magallanes Village, Makati City; the respondents are Manila Electric Company (MERALCO), the barangay officials of Barangay 183 (led by Barangay Chairman Cesar S. Toledanes), and the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) represented by its General Manager.In 2001 the former operator of NAIA Terminal III (PIATCO) applied for electric service and MERALCO determined that a nearby substation and transmission lines were required; the substation was completed in 2002. MERALCO began excavation for poles and lines along 10th Street in Barangay 183 on September 10, 2009, but the Pasay City Engineering Office issued a cease-and-desist order on December 3, 2009 after complaints from residents. On December 4, 2009 some residents filed a petition for a writ of prohibitory injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay (raffled to Branch 111). MIAA filed a separate petition to lift the cease-and-desist, and RTC Branch 118 issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction on July 23, 2010; Branch 111 later declared the prohibitory injunction case moot on August 31, 2010. MERALCO resumed works and completed installation of 115 kV transmission lines to the NAIA III substation on November 19, 2010.
After administrative appeals to barangay officials failed, Gemma Dela Cruz and other residents filed a Petition for Issuance of a writ of kalikasan in the Court of Appeals, impleading MERALCO, MIAA, and barangay officials, and prayed for a temporary environmental protection order. The Court of Appeals, in a January 20, 2011 Decision, denied the petition for lack of merit, finding among other things that (1) petitioners improperly invoked the writ to vindicate the right to health as distinct from the right to a balanced and healthful ecology; (2) petitioners failed to prove that electromagnetic fields (EMF) from the lines endangered life or health and that MERALCO complied with DOH Administrative Order No. 033-07 and the Philippine Electrical Code (clearances and reference levels); and (3) the earlier-filed prohibitory injunction raised identical issues and therefore constituted forum shopping. The Court of Appeals also denied reconsideration in a July 14, 2011 Resolution.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court (filed August 16, 2011). The Court directed the filing of comments and memoranda, the case was submitted for decision, and the issues framed for resolution were whe...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did petitioners commit forum shopping by filing the writ of kalikasan after an earlier prohibitory injunction action?
- Did the installation and energization of MERALCO’s transmission lines violate petitioners’ constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, thereby warranting relief under the writ of kalikasan?
- Does the precautionary principle apply to require injunctive reli...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)