G.R. No. 199199 - Dolot vs. Paje

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199199)

Antecedent Facts and Reliefs Sought

Petitioners alleged that beginning around 2009 they protested iron ore mining in Matnog because of environmental dangers (flooding, landslides, liquefaction, ground subsidence) and that mining operators lacked required permits. They asserted that the Sorsogon Governor(s) issued small-scale mining permits without authority and that DENR and other officials failed to protect public interest. They invoked violations of R.A. No. 7076, R.A. No. 7942, and the Local Government Code. Reliefs sought included a writ commanding respondents to stop mining operations, a temporary environmental protection order (TEPO), creation of an inter-agency rehabilitation group, damages and return of iron ore.

RTC Proceedings and Grounds for Dismissal

The case was assigned to RTC Sorsogon, Branch 53 (designated environmental court). By Order dated September 16, 2011 the RTC summarily dismissed Civil Case No. 2011-8338 for lack of jurisdiction. The motion for reconsideration was denied by Resolution dated October 18, 2011. The RTC further held that (1) there was no existing final court decree or decision that public officials failed to act on (a condition it perceived necessary for continuing mandamus), (2) petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and (3) petitioners did not attach judicial affidavits nor furnish the government with a copy of the complaint as required.

RTC’s Reliance on Administrative Orders and the Distinction Between Venue and Jurisdiction

The RTC based its lack-of-jurisdiction ruling on A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular No. 23-2008, concluding its territorial jurisdiction was limited to Sorsogon City and certain neighboring municipalities and therefore it could not entertain the Matnog-based petition. The Supreme Court held this reasoning erroneous, emphasizing the well-settled distinction that venue concerns the place of trial, whereas jurisdiction is the power to hear and decide a case and is conferred by law, not by internal court administrative orders.

Statutory Basis of Jurisdiction under B.P. Blg. 129

The Court reiterated that jurisdiction over special civil actions (including mandamus) is vested by law in the Regional Trial Courts under B.P. Blg. 129. Section 21(1) expressly grants RTCs original jurisdiction in issuing writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction enforceable in any part of their respective regions. Thus, administrative orders like A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular No. 23-2008 cannot confer or divest jurisdiction; they only define territorial areas for venue purposes, pursuant to Section 18 of B.P. Blg. 129.

Administrative Orders Only Define Venue; Non-Observance Does Not Void Jurisdiction

The Court cited precedent confirming that administrative orders delineating territorial areas merely define limits for administrative and venue purposes and do not per se confer jurisdiction or render judicial acts null for non-observance. The RTC’s dismissal on jurisdictional grounds was therefore improper; at most the petition was filed in an improper venue, which is a curable defect and not a basis for outright dismissal of the action.

Transfer to Proper RTC Is the Appropriate Remedy

Given the venue issue (the alleged actionable neglect occurred in Matnog, within the territorial coverage of RTC-Irosin, Branch 55), the Supreme Court ordered that the matter be transferred to RTC-Irosin, Branch 55, for proper and speedy resolution. The Court emphasized that venue may be waived and that courts should, when appropriate, transfer cases to the proper branch rather than dismissing them, consistent with prior jurisprudence.

Applicability and Standards under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) govern special civil actions for continuing mandamus and set distinct procedural and substantive standards. Rule 8 requires that petitions be sufficient in form and substance; courts may dismiss insufficient petitions but must exercise discretion reasonably and in the interest of justice. The Rules require verification, supporting evidence, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping; they also require allegations to be pleaded with certainty and to specify that the petition concerns an environmental law.

Sufficiency in Form and Substance for Continuing Mandamus

Substantively, a petition for continuing mandamus must establish at least a prima facie basis for issuance by alleging (1) unlawful neglect by a government agency or officer to perform an act or exclusion from a right; (2) that the act is specifically enjoined by law as a duty; (3) that such duty arises from office, trust or station in connection with enforcement/violation of an environmental law; and (4) that there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court noted that these requirements focus on whether the petition, as filed, makes out an actionable neglect or omission.

Misinterpretation Regarding Need for a Final Court Decree

The RTC’s view that continuing mandamus requires an existing final court decree, order or decision prior to filing was rejected. The Supreme Court clarified that the reference to a “final judgment” in the definition of continuing mandamus pertains to the judgment that a court will render after adjudication under Rule 8; the writ of continuing mandamus permits courts to retain jurisdiction after final judgment to ensure continuing compliance until full satisfaction of the judgment. In other words, no prior final court judgment is a precondition to filing a petition for continuing mandamus.

Panel of Arbitrators and the Question of Administrative Remedies

Respondents argued the Panel of Arbitrators under R.A. No. 7942 had exclusive jurisdiction over mining disputes and that petitioners should have resorted to admin

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 199199)

Procedural Posture and Case Caption

Supreme Court, En Banc; G.R. No. 199199, decided August 27, 2013; reported 716 Phil. 458; 110 O.G. No. 20, 3131 (May 19, 2014).
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking relief from RTC of Sorsogon, Branch 53, Order dated September 16, 2011 and Resolution dated October 18, 2011 which dismissed Civil Case No. 2011-8338 for Continuing Mandamus, Damages and Attorney's Fees with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Environment Protection Order (TEPO).
Decision penned by Justice Reyes; the petition was resolved by the Supreme Court granting the petition, nullifying and setting aside the RTC dismissals, and directing transfer to RTC Irosin, Branch 55.

Antecedent Facts

On September 15, 2011, petitioner Maricris D. Dolot, together with the parish priest of the Holy Infant Jesus Parish and officers of Alyansa Laban sa Mina sa Matnog, filed Civil Case No. 2011-8338 before RTC Sorsogon, Branch 53.
The petitioners alleged opposition to iron ore mining operations conducted by Antones Enterprises, Global Summit Mines Development Corporation and TR Ore in Barangays Balocawe and Bon-ot Daco, Municipality of Matnog.
Petitioners averred that Matnog is at the southern tip of Luzon, requiring protection of its geological foundation due to susceptibility to flooding, landslides, flood hazards, liquefaction, ground settlement, ground subsidence and landslide hazard.
After investigation petitioners learned the mining operators did not have the required permit to operate.
Petitioners alleged that Sorsogon Governor Raul Lee and his predecessor Sally Lee issued small-scale mining permits without authority to do so.
Petitioners alleged inaction by representatives of the Presidential Management Staff and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), despite knowledge of the situation.
Petitioners alleged violations by respondents of R.A. No. 7076 (People's Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991), R.A. No. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995), and the Local Government Code.

Reliefs Sought by Petitioners

A writ commanding respondents to immediately stop the mining operations in the Municipality of Matnog.
Issuance of a Temporary Environment Protection Order (TEPO).
Creation of an inter-agency group to undertake rehabilitation of the mining site.
Award of damages and attorney's fees.
Return of the iron ore, among other reliefs.

Lower Court Proceedings and Rulings (RTC, Branch 53)

Executive Judge referred the case to Branch 53 as the designated environmental court.
RTC Branch 53 issued an Order dated September 16, 2011 summarily dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration; the motion was resolved by the Pairing Judge (Presiding Judge recused).
RTC issued a Resolution dated October 18, 2011 denying reconsideration and affirming dismissal, additionally ruling:
- There was no final court decree, order or decision which the public officials allegedly failed to act on, allegedly a condition for issuance of continuing mandamus.
- The case was prematurely filed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Petitioners failed to attach judicial affidavits and to furnish a copy of the complaint to the government or appropriate agency as required by rules.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether RTC Branch 53 had jurisdiction to resolve Civil Case No. 2011-8338.
Whether the petition was dismissible on grounds that:
- (1) there was no final court decree, order or decision that public officials failed to act on;
- (2) the petition was prematurely filed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and
- (3) petitioners failed to attach judicial affidavits and to furnish a copy of the complaint to the government or appropriate agency.

Jurisdiction and Venue — Legal Framework Cited

Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) vests jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs); Section 21(1) provides RTCs shall exercise original jurisdiction in issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions.
Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 7 (A.O. No. 7) and Administrative Circular No. 23-2008 define territorial areas and designate environmental courts; these instruments were issued pursuant to Section 18 of B.P. Blg. 129 to define the territory for venue purposes.
Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Matas and other authorities clarified that administrative orders defining territorial jurisdiction do not confer subject-matter jurisdiction but relate to venue/administrative area.
Venue relates to place of trial and does not equate to jurisdiction; venue may be waived and improper venue does not strip a court of jurisdiction unless the matter is criminal where venue is essential to jurisdiction.

Supreme Court Analysis on Jurisdiction and Venue

The RTC’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction based solely on A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular No. 23-2008