BANGUS FRY PARTIES: PETITIONERS: BANGUS FRY FISHERFOLK (fisherfolks from minolo) RESPONDENTS: Lazanas (Judge RTC Manila),

DENR, NAPOCOR, OMECO, certain PG officials ---Petition for review of RTC Manila decision dismissing complaint for: 1. Lack of cause of action 2. Lack of jurisdiction Facts: 1. RED Principe of DENR issued ECC to NAPOCOR authorizing the construction of temporary mooring facility in Minolo Cove (Puerto GAlera) serve as the temporary docking site of NAPOCORs power barges. Minolo cove considered as mangrove area and breeding ground for bangus fry , an eco-tourist zone. power barge would provide the main source of power for the entire province of Oriental Mindoro pending the construction of a land-based power plant in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. The ECC for the mooring facility was valid for two years counted from its date of issuance Petitioners sought reconsideration of the ECC issuance. Principe denied RTC Manila Petitioners filed complaint: RTC Manila issued 20 day tro to stop the construction of the mooring 1. for cancellation of the ECC facility 2. Issuance of writ of injunction to stop the construction of mooring facility But RTC lifted NAPOCOR manifested that Oriental Mindoro undertake Filed amended complaint the construction 3. Prayer for demolition of mooring structures that respondents already built Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint Petitioner answered: Grounds: 1. There was no need to exhaust administrative remedies 1. Failed to exhaust administrative remedies- result complaint lack of cause of actin 2. Issuance of ECC was in patent violation of 2. RTC Manila has no jurisdiction mooring facility outside RTC Manila ---PD 1605 jurisdiction ---RA 7160 sec 26 27 ---provisions of DENR DAO96-37 on the documentation of ECC applications 3. RTC Resolution: DISMISSED the complaint 1. 2. Failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies No jurisdiction to issue injunctive writ prayed for 3. 4. 5. Implementation of the ECC was in patent violation of its terms

Failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before taking legal action to the court There was no deed for immediate judicial intervention ECC issued RO DENR which has jurisdiction over the same the issue WON Minolo cove is w/in the enclosed coves and waters embraced in PG bay and protected by MEDIo island is a CLEAR QUESTION OF FACT which DENR may appropriately resolve before resorting to the courts 6. Writ of injuction can only be enforced within the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC but not for acts which are being or about to be committed outside its territorial jurisdiction Courts are without jurisdiction to issue injunctive writs against NAPOCOR- enjoys protective mantle of PD 1818 SC RULING

Jurisdiction of RTC Manila 1. Petitioners complaint not capable of pecuniary estimation--- falls w/in the exclusive ang original jurisdiction of the RTC (BP 129, sec19 (1) amended by ra 7691 ---- manila or OM? Determined by the residence of the parties

the Manila RTC has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the issuance of the ECC, although it could not issue an injunctive writ against the DENR or NAPOCOR. However, since the

construction of the mooring facility could not proceed without a valid ECC, the validity of the ECC remains the determinative issue in resolving petitioners' complaint. ("PD No. 1818") prohibited14 courts from issuing injunctive writs against government infrastructure projects like the mooring facility in the present case neither the Manila RTC nor the Oriental Mindoro RTC can issue an injunctive writ to stop the construction of the mooring facility. Only this Court can do so under PD No. 1818 and later under RA No. 8975.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies The settled rule is before a party may seek the intervention of the courts, he should first avail of all the means afforded by administrative processes. If a remedy within the administrative machinery is still available, with a procedure prescribed pursuant to law for an administrative officer to decide the controversy, a party should first exhaust such remedy before resorting to the courts. The premature invocation of a court's intervention renders the complaint without cause of action and dismissible on such ground. Appeal to the Office of the SECREtary (15 days) lacking Grounds: 1. Grave abuse of discretion 2. serious errors in the findings of fact which would cause grave or irreparable injury to the aggrieved party WHO: proponent, stakeholder, lgus affected communities Petitioner bypassed DENR SEC deprives the opportuninty to review the decision of the subordinate Omission- complaint dismissible lack of COA On the Alleged Patent Illegality of the ECC Petitioner contends: they are exempt from filing an appeal with the DENR Secretary because the issuance of the ECC was in patent violation of existing laws and regulations. These are (1) Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1605, as amended, (2) Sections 26 and 27 of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), and (3) the provisions of DAO 96-37 on the documentary requirements for the zoning permit and social acceptability of the mooring facility SC: without merit Presidential Decree No. 1605 the construction of marinas, hotels, restaurants, other commercial structures; commercial or semi-commercial wharfs [sic]; commercial docking within the enclosed coves of Puerto Galera; the destruction of its mangrove stands; the devastation of its corals and coastline by large barges, motorboats, tugboat propellers, and any form of destruction by other human activities are hereby prohibited. Section 2. x x x No permit for the construction of any wharf, marina, hotel, restaurants and other commercial structures in Puerto Galera shall be issued without prior approval of the Office of the President upon the recommendation of the Philippine Tourism Authority. NAPOCOR: claims that since Minolo Cove lies outside of "Puerto Galera Bay as protected by Medio Island

Petitioners: Minolo Cove is one of the "enclosed coves of Puerto Galera"25 and thus protected under PD No. 1605. This is a question of fact that the DENR Secretary should have first resolved

The mooring facility is obviously a government-owned public infrastructure intended to serve a basic need of the people of Oriental Mindoro. The mooring facility is not a "commercial structure; commercial or semi-commercial wharf or commercial docking" as contemplated in Section 1 of PD No. 1605. Therefore, the issuance of the ECC does not violate PD No. 1605 which applies only to commercial structures like wharves, marinas, hotels and restaurants. Sections 26 and 27 of RA No. 7160 These provisions require every national government agency or government-owned and controlled corporation to hold prior consultations with the local government unit concerned and to secure the prior approval of its sanggunian before implementing "any project or program that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of cropland, rangeland, or forest cover and extinction of animal or plant species Sections 26 and 27 do not apply to this case because as petitioners admit, the mooring facility itself is not environmentally critical and hence does not belong to any of the six types of projects mentioned in the law. There is no statutory requirement for the concerned sanggunian to approve the construction of the mooring facility. It is another matter if the operation of the power barge is at issue. As an environmentally critical project that causes pollution, the operation of the power barge needs the prior approval of the concerned sanggunian. However, what is before this Court is only the construction of the mooring facility, not the operation of the power barge. Thus, the issuance of the ECC does not violate Sections 26 and 27 of RA No. 7160. Petitioners : NAPOCOR in applying for the ECC, did not submit to the DENR Region IV Office the documents proving the holding of : (1) consultations and (2) the issuance of a locational clearance or zoning certificate. Petitioners assert that this omission renders the issuance of the ECC patently illegal. SC: their mere absence does not render the issuance of the ECC patently illegal. To justify non-exhaustion of administrative remedies due to the patent illegality of the ECC, the public officer must have issued the ECC "[without any] semblance of compliance, or even an attempt to comply, with the pertinent laws; when manifestly, the officer has acted without jurisdiction or has exceeded his jurisdiction, or has committed a grave abuse of discretion; or when his act is clearly and obviously devoid of any color of authority."30 On the Alleged Non-Compliance with the Terms of the ECC PETITIONERS: claim that they are justified in immediately seeking judicial recourse because NAPOCOR is guilty of violating the conditions of the ECC, which requires it to secure a separate ECC for the operation of the power barge. The ECC also mandates NAPOCOR to secure the usual local government permits, like zoning and building permits, from the municipal government of Puerto Galera. SC: The fact that NAPOCOR's ECC is subject to cancellation for non-compliance with its conditions does not justify petitioners' conduct in ignoring the procedure prescribed in DAO 96-37 on appeals from the decision of the DENR Executive Director. Petitioners vigorously insist that NAPOCOR should comply with the requirements of consultation and locational clearance prescribed in DAO 96-37. Ironically, petitioners themselves refuse to abide with the procedure for filing complaints and appealing decisions laid down in DAO 96-37