G.R. No. 187836 - Social Justice Society Officers vs. Lim

Social Justice Society (SJS) officers, namely Samson S. Alcantara and Vladimir Alarique T. Cabigao, filed petitions challenging the continued stay of the Pandacan oil terminals.
Alfredo S. Lim, in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Manila, and multiple city officials were named respondents in the consolidated matters.
Chevron Philippines, Inc., Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Shell), and Petron Corporation (Petron) intervened as oil-company respondents.
This Court, in a Decision promulgated 25 November 2014, declared Ordinance No. 8187 unconstitutional and invalid insofar as it permitted the continued stay of the Pandacan Oil Terminals and ordered timelines for relocation and monitoring.
The Decision required the intervenor oil companies to submit an updated comprehensive plan and relocation schedule to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Manila within a non-extendible period of forty-five (45) days, and directed that the relocation be completed not later than six (6) months from the date the required documents were submitted, with Branch 39 to monitor enforcement.
Following promulgation, the intervenors filed the following submissions: (a) Shell filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the 25 November 2014 Decision; (b) Chevron filed a Motion for Clarification; and (c) Petron filed a Manifestation of Understanding of the dispositive portion of the Decision.

Shell argued that the Decision erroneously relied on factual pronouncements in G.R. No. 156052 (Social Justice Society v. Mayor Atienza, Jr.) that were unsupported by competent evidence.
Shell contended the Decision adopted imagined fears, surmises and conjectures proffered by petitioners and that these cases, involving factual issues, were wrongly filed with this Court rather than the trial court or Court of Appeals.
Shell asserted there was no substantial difference between the conditions considered in 2001 and those at present regarding oil depot operations.
Shell maintained that the enactment of Ordinance No. 8187 rendered the petitions moot and academic and that the petitions should therefore have been dismissed.

Chevron manifested that it had ceased using the Pandacan terminals for its fuel and lubricants operations as of June 2014 and currently had zero commercial volume stored there.
Chevron acknowledged continued shareholding and governance involvement in Pandacan Depot Services, Inc. (PDSI), a joint venture of Chevron, Petron and Shell, and that Petron and Shell continued to operate the Pandacan terminals through PDSI.
Chevron sought clarification of a paragraph in the Decision stating that depots storing millions of liters of highly flammable and volatile products “have no place in a densely populated area,” contending that the statement was sweeping, not confined to the lis mota of the case, and unsupported as to depots generally.
Chevron also sought deferral of the submission of an updated comprehensive plan and relocation schedule until final resolution of its motion.

Petron sought clarification whether the 45-day requirement to submit an updated comprehensive plan and relocation schedule was limited to cessation of operations and did not include removal of the physical facilities.
Petron argued the operation, not merely the presence of facilities, ran afoul of Ordinance No. 8119, though the Court noted the proper instrument to consider was Ordinance No. 8027, enforced in G.R. No. 156052.
Petron pointed to its 30 November 2010 Manifestation promising to cease operations by January 2016 and suggested that timetable supported exclusion of immediate facility removal from the comprehensive plan requirement.

The Court relied on historical incidents recounted in G.R. No. 156052, including fuel-storage conflagrations in December 1941 and an earlier explosion, as relevant factual background to safety concerns.
The Court reiterated its prior ruling in G.R. No. 156052 that Ordinance No. 8027 was not impliedly repealed by Ordinance No. 8119, with Ordinance No. 8027 applicable to the specifically described area and Ordinance No. 8119 applicable to the City at large.

The Court denied Shell’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision ...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the Court should grant Shell’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated 25 November 2014.

Whether the Decision erroneously relied on factual pronouncements in G.R. No. 156052 that lack competent evidence.
Whether the petitions involved factual issues that were improperly filed with this Court rather than the trial court or Court of Appeals.
Whether the Decision adopted imagined fears and conjectures of petitioners without evidentiary support.
Whether the enactment of Ordinance No. 8187 rendered the petitions moot and academic such that dismissal was required.

Whether the Court should grant Chevron’s Motion for Clarification of the statement that oil depots “have no place in a densely populated area.”

Whether that statement was a sweeping categorical pronouncement beyond the lis mota of the case.
Whether the Decision should be modified to remove the paragraph or to defer compliance obligations until final resolution.

Whether the Court should accept Petron’s interpretation that the 45-day requirement to submit an updated comprehensive plan and relocation schedule pertains only to cessation of operations and not to the removal of physical facilities.