Case Summary (G.R. No. 110170)
Key Dates
• 2009: Initial protests against iron-ore mining operations
• September 15, 2011: Filing of petition for continuing mandamus, damages, attorney’s fees, and TEPO
• September 16, 2011: RTC Sorsogon Branch 53 Order dismissing case for lack of jurisdiction
• October 18, 2011: RTC Resolution denying reconsideration
• August 27, 2013: Resolution of this Court granting review on certiorari
• May 19, 2014: En banc decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution (Article IV, Section 5)
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980)
• Republic Act No. 7076 (People’s Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991)
• Republic Act No. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995)
• Local Government Code
• A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC (Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases)
• Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 7 (1983, as amended 2009)
• Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 23-2008
Antecedent Facts and Prayer for Relief
In 2009, Dolot and members of Alyansa Laban sa Mina sa Matnog protested iron-ore mining by Antones Enterprises, Global Summit Mines Development Corp., and TR Ore in Matnog, citing lack of permits, environmental hazards (flooding, liquefaction, landslides), and unauthorized small-scale mining permits issued by the Sorsogon Governor. On September 15, 2011, they filed Civil Case No. 2011-8338 in RTC Sorsogon Branch 53, praying for:
- Writ of continuing mandamus compelling respondents to halt mining operations;
- Temporary Environment Protection Order (TEPO);
- Creation of an inter-agency rehabilitation group;
- Award of damages and attorney’s fees;
- Return of confiscated iron ore.
The Executive Judge designated Branch 53 as the environmental court. On September 16, 2011, the court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction; the October 18, 2011 Resolution denied reconsideration, adding that petitioners failed to show a prior final court order, did not exhaust administrative remedies, and omitted judicial affidavits and service on respondents.
Issues Presented
- Whether RTC Sorsogon Branch 53 had jurisdiction to entertain Civil Case No. 2011-8338.
- Whether the petition warranted dismissal for:
a. Absence of a final court decree or order;
b. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies;
c. Omission of judicial affidavits and service on respondents.
Jurisdiction and Venue
The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction to hear special civil actions for mandamus is conferred by law (B.P. Blg. 129, §21(1)), not by internal administrative orders. A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular No. 23-2008 define venue—where an action may be filed—but do not grant or restrict jurisdiction. Under B.P. Blg. 129, RTCs exercise original jurisdiction over writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction enforceable “in any part of their respective regions.” Venue in environmental cases is governed by A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 8, §2, which directs actions to the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the neglect occurred. Matnog falls within RTC Irosin Branch 55, not Sorsogon Branch 53, making the petition improperly venued but not depriving Sorsogon of jurisdiction. The appropriate remedy is transfer, not dismissal.
Continuing Mandamus under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
Rule 8 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC codifies the writ of continuing mandamus to compel government agencies to perform duties under environmental law. Section 1 requires a verified petition alleging facts with certainty, attaching evidence, specifying the environmental law involved, and including a non-forum-shopping certification. Section 8 retains court jurisdiction after final judgment to monitor compliance. The RTC misread “final decree” as a prerequisite before issuance of the writ; in fact, the term refers to the judgment to be enforced continuously once rendered and finalized. No prior court decision is required for issuance of the w
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 110170)
Procedural History
- Petition filed before RTC–Sorsogon, Branch 53 on September 15, 2011: Civil Case No. 2011-8338 for continuing mandamus, damages, attorney’s fees, and prayer for a Temporary Environment Protection Order (TEPO).
- RTC, in an Order dated September 16, 2011, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
- Motion for reconsideration denied by Resolution dated October 18, 2011, which also added grounds of prematurity, non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, and procedural defects.
- Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 45, raising pure questions of law.
Antecedent Facts
- Petitioners, led by Maricris D. Dolot, protested iron ore mining in Barangays Balocawe and Bon-ot Daco, Municipality of Matnog, by Antones Enterprises, Global Summit Mines Dev’t Corp., and TR Ore.
- Matnog’s geography: southern tip of Luzon; geologically sensitive to flooding, landslides, liquefaction, ground subsidence.
- Investigation revealed operators lacked required permits; permits allegedly issued beyond the authority of Governor Raul Lee and predecessor Sally Lee.
- DENR and Presidential Management Staff representatives, despite awareness, failed to intervene to protect Matnog residents.
- Alleged statutory violations of R.A. 7076 (People’s Small-Scale Mining Act), R.A. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act), and pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code.
- Prayer for reliefs: cessation of mining operations, issuance of TEPO, creation of inter-agency rehabilitation group, award of damages, and return of iron ore.
Issues
- Whether RTC–Sorsogon, Branch 53 had jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 2011-8338.
- Whether the petition was properly dismissible on grounds that:
• no prior final court decree, order, or decision existed;
• the petition was prematurely filed for failure to exhaust administ