17. Cordillera Global Network, et al. and Judy Lyn Adajar, et al.

vs Ramon Paje, DENR

Secretary, et al.
G.R. No 215988, April 10, 2019

FACTS:

Few years after the completion of SM City Baguio (Under ECC CAR0106-047-120) on November
2003, the company wanted to expand its existing mall on Luneta Hill to increase parking and
commercial spaces that will require cutting of 182 trees.

In connection to the expansion project SM Investments submitted an amendment on their original

ECC on Dec 2010 which was later granted on Sep 2011 by DENR. DENR granted their clearance and
permit to the cut trees which was subject to several conditions, including conduct of public consultation
with stakeholders.

On February 2012, the Cordillera Global Network, representing concerned citizens of Baguio City filed
an environmental case on the ground that the expansion project will severely damage the environment
and health of the residents and a temporary environment protection order to prevent SM from cutting
tress but was later on resumed upon go signal to cut trees from the Executive Director, Clarence
Baguilat of DENR. Upon RTC Hearing, temporary protection order was extended but later on lifted
since SM argued that they strictly complied with the requirements.

On December 2013, RTC dismissed the case and held that though the petitioners possess the
necessary personality under the principle of transcendental importance, petitioners did not exhaust
administrative remedies. Additionality, they failed to prove that the removal of trees would have a
detrimental effect that will cause irreparable damage. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
RTC and added that petitioners failed to prove their allegation in the irregularity of the amended ECC.

The case was brought to the Supreme Court and petitioners maintained that SM violated the zoning
and city ordinance limit that they needed to obtain a separate ECC, that there was no public
consultation, the case was exempted from to exhaustion of administrative remedies.

SM also states that the case is moot because the permits have already expired and the trees have
already been removed.

ISSUE:

(1) Whether or not the petition must be dismissed for defective certification against forum
shopping.

Private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center Management Corporation
assert that the Petition should be dismissed outright for its defective Verification and Certification
Against Forum Shopping.90 It points out that of the 202 or so claimed petitioners, only 30 actually
signed the document. Further, two (2) of the 30 signatories were not even plaintiffs in either the
first or second environmental case before the Regional Trial Court.91

Private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center Management Corporation are
mistaken.

However, contrary to private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center
Management Corporation's assertions, the failure of all petitioners to sign the document is not a
sufficient ground for the Petition's outright dismissal. Jurisprudence confirms that petitioners
substantially complied with the verification requirement. The 30 signatories provided the guarantee
that: (1) they had ample knowledge as to the truth of the allegations in the Petition; and (2) the
Petition was made in good faith.For the certification against forum shopping, Altres stated the
general rule that non-signing petitioners will be dropped as parties to the case. Nonetheless, there
is an exception: when all petitioners share a common interest, the signature of one (1) petitioner in
the certification against forum shopping is enough to satisfy the substantial compliance rule.97
 Here, petitioners all share a common interest, which is to declare the cutting or earth-balling of the
trees affected by the Expansion Project illegal. Hence, the signature of 30 petitioners to the
certification against forum shopping amounts to substantial compliance with the requirement under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

(2) Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for failure to observe the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies.

Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

The principle of exhaustion of remedies states that where a remedy before an administrative body is
provided by statute, relief must first be sought by exhausting this remedy prior to bringing an action in
court in order to give the administrative body every opportunity to decide a matter that comes within its
jurisdiction; otherwise, his action is premature and his case is not ripe for judicial determination.

The general rule is to first exhaust the available administrative remedies before a party can bring the
case to a court for judicial review."111 In connection with the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Under this doctrine, courts will hold off from
determining a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of an administrative agency,
particularly when its resolution demands the "special knowledge, experience[,] and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact."112

However, Pagara v. Court of Appeals emphasized that the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It may be disregarded when any of the following exceptions are
present:

It is not applicable (1) where the question in dispute is purely a legal one, or (2) where the
controverted act is patently illegal or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction; or
(3) where the respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear
the implied or assumed approval of the latter, unless actually disapproved by him, or (4) where there
are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention . . . .

Said principle may also be disregarded when it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy, . . . when there is no due process observed . . . or where the protestant has no other recourse
. . . .114

Article II, Section 6 of Department of Environment and Natural Resources Administrative Order No.
2003-30 provides:

Section 6. Appeal. —

Any party aggrieved by the final decision on the [Environmental Compliance Certificate]/[Certificate of
Non-Coverage] applications may, within 15 days from receipt of such decision, file an appeal on the
following grounds:

a. Grave abuse of discretion on the part of the deciding authority, or

b. Serious errors in the review findings.

The [Department of Environment and Natural Resources] may adopt alternative conflict/dispute
resolution procedures as a means to settle grievances between proponents and aggrieved parties to
avert unnecessary legal action. Frivolous appeals shall not be countenanced.
The proponent or any stakeholder may file an appeal to the following:

Deciding Authority Where to file the appeal

EMB Regional Office DirectorOffice of the EMB Director
EMB Central Office Office of the DENR Secretary
DENR Secretary Office of the President115
The first sentence of Section 6 shows that the remedy of appeal is only available to a party that
applied for an environmental compliance certificate or certificate of non-coverage. This is bolstered by
the period provided for the filing of an appeal—within 15 days from receipt of such decision—since
only a party to the application is entitled to receive it. However, as respondents posit, stakeholders are
not precluded from filing an appeal as stated in Section 6's last sentence.

This apparent contradiction was clarified in Boracay Foundation, Inc., where this Court ruled that an
appeal under Section 6 only applies to a party to the proceedings before the appropriate agency:

“As petitioner correctly pointed out, the appeal provided for under Section 6 of DENR DAO 2003-30 is
only applicable, based on the first sentence thereof, if the person or entity charged with the duty to
exhaust the administrative remedy of appeal to the appropriate government agency has been a party
or has been made a party in the proceedings wherein the decision to be appealed was rendered.’’

It is not disputed that petitioners were never a party to the application of environmental compliance
certificates, both the original and amended, for the Expansion Project. Hence, they were never
furnished a copy of the Decision on the Environmental Compliance Certificate, which would trigger the
start of the 15-day appeal period provided for under Section 6.

Since they were never made parties to the application for the amended Environmental Compliance
Certificate, they are not bound by the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies.

(3) Whether the permits issued are valid and regularly issued or the amended ECC is enough.

*Yes, permits issued are valid.

Here, Engineer Cayat, the officer-in-charge of the Planning Development Office of Baguio City,
testified that a zoning clearance was issued to the SM Pines Resort Project on Luneta Hill as it
conformed to both the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.

Ordinance No. 51, series of 2001, or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the City of Baguio118
(Zoning Ordinance) is intended to "[g]uide, control, and regulate further growth and development of
Baguio City in accordance with its Comprehensive Land Use Plan"119 by providing separate zones for
effective and orderly use of land by Baguio residents and visitors alike.

*Issue re: ECC. SM is mistaken in their claim that there was no need to a new ECC it did not provide
relevant information as to whether the trees were planted or naturally grown which was crucial to
determine if the affected tress were natural or residual forest. The original ECC contemplated 112
trees only but did not account removal of additional 182 trees.

Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The March 24, 2015 Temporary Restraining Order, amended
on April 19, 2016, is made PERMANENT without prejudice to the filing of an application for a
new environmental compliance certificate.

Commerce is important for human survival, but so is ecology.

In addition to upholding what the law contains, let this Decision affirm our human stewardship of the
planet. We belong to the land, its waters, and its forests. Protection of the environment on behalf of
our present and future communities is progress. During our watch, we will be on constant guard not
only on what is done beyond the law, but also against the hastened demise of the natural endowments
entrusted to us.

The depth, quality, and complexity of our forests' biodiversity is a marker of humanity's enlightenment.
Every tree saved from being sacrificed in the name of profits matters.