1

MMDA
v.
CORPORATION

JANCOM

ENVIRONMENTAL

FACTS:
1. 1994: President Ramos issued a Presidential
Memorandum Order No. 202 creating the
Executive Committee (EXECOM) to oversee the
BOT (build-operate-transfer) implementation of
solid waste management projects.
2. It is headed by the Chairman of the MMDA and the
Cabinet Officer for Regional Devt-NCR.
3. The EXECOM was to oversee and develop wasteto-energy projects for the waste disposal sites in
San Mateo, Rizal and Carmona, Cavite under the
BOT scheme.
4. The terms for the projects provided that its
proponents should have the capability to establish
municipal solid waste thermal plants using
incineration technology.
5. This technology was selected because of its
alleged advantages of greatly reduced waste
volume, prolongation of the service life of the
disposal site, and generation of electricity.
6. After bidding for a waste management project
with the MMDA, JANCOM won a contract for the
MMDAs San Mateo waste management project.
7. A BOT contract for the waste to energy project
was signed on Dec 19, 1997, between JANCOM
and the Philippine Government, represented by
the Presidential Task Force on Solid Waste
Management through DENR Secretary Victor
Ramos, CORD-NCR chair Dionisio dela Serna, and
MMDA chair Prospero Oreta.
8. The contract, however, was never signed by
President Ramos as it was too close to the end of
his term.
9. He endorsed it to President Estrada, but Estrada

refused to sign it, for two reasons: the passage of

RA 8749, or the Clean Air Act of 1999 and the
clamor of San Mateo residents for the closure of
the dumpsite.
10.
When the MMDA published another call for
proposals for solid waste management projects for
Metro Manila, JANCOM filed a petition with the
Pasig RTC asking the court to declare as void the
resolution of the Greater Metropolitan Manila Solid
Waste Management Committee disregarding the
BOT contract with JANCOM, and the call for bids
for a new waste management contract.
11.
On May 29, 2000, the lower court decided in
favor of JANCOM.
12.
Instead of appealing, the MMDA filed with
the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and a
TRO.
13.
When the CA dismissed the petition, the
MMDA went to the Supreme Court, arguing that
the contract with JANCOM was not binding
because it was not signed by the President, the
conditions precedent to the contract were not
complied with, and there was no valid notice of
award.
14.
The reasons cited by MMDA for not pushing
through with the subject contract were: 1) the
passage of the Clean Air Act, which allegedly bans
incineration; 2) the closure of the San Mateo
landfill site; and 3) the costly tipping fee.
ISSUE: Whether or not Section 20 of the Clean Air Act
bans incineration as a mode of waste disposal. NOT
ABSOLUTELY.
HELD:
Sec. 20 of the Clean Air Act pertinently reads:
SECTION 20. Ban on Incineration. Incineration,
hereby defined as the burning of municipal, bio-

chemical and hazardous wastes, which process emits

poisonous and toxic fumes, is hereby prohibited: x x x.
Section 20 does not absolutely prohibit
incineration as a mode of waste disposal; rather
only those burning processes which emit
poisonous and toxic fumes are banned.
As regards the projected closure of the San Mateo
landfill vis--vis the implementability of the contract, Art.
2.3 thereof expressly states that [i]n the event the
project Site is not delivered x x x, the Presidential task
Force on Solid Waste Management (PTFSWM) and the
Client, shall provide within a reasonable period of time,
a suitable alternative acceptable to the BOT COMPANY.
With respect to the alleged financial non-viability
of the project because the MMDA and the local
government units cannot afford the tipping fees under
the contract, this circumstance cannot, by itself,
abrogate the entire agreement.
Doctrinal is the rule that neither the law nor the
courts will extricate a party from an unwise or
undesirable contract, or stipulation for that matter, he
or she entered into with full awareness of its
consequences (Opulencia vs. CA, 293 SCRA 385).
Indeed, the terms and conditions of the subject contract
were arrived at after due negotiations between the
parties thereto.
DECISION:
The Court of Appeals did not err when it declared
the existence of a valid and perfected contract between
the Republic of the Philippines and Jancom. The MMDA
cannot revoke or renounce the same without the
consent of the other. Although the contract is a
perfected one, it is still ineffective or unimplementable
until and unless it is approved by the President.

3 HENARES v. LTFRB
GR No. 158290
October 23, 2006
FACTS: Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ
of
mandamus
commanding
respondents
Land
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)
and
the
Department
of
Transportation
and
Communications (DOTC) to require public utility vehicles
(PUVs) to use compressed natural gas (CNG) as
alternative fuel.
ISSUES: (1) Do petitioners have legal personality to
bring this petition before us? (2) Should mandamus
issue against respondents to compel PUVs to use CNG
as alternative fuel?
APPLICABLE LAWS:
Section 16,12 Article II of the 1987 Constitution
The State shall protect and advance the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord
with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
Section 414 of Republic Act No. 8749 otherwise known
as the "Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999." SEC. 4.
Recognition of Rights. Pursuant to the above-declared
principles, the following rights of citizens are hereby
sought to be recognized and the State shall seek to
guarantee their enjoyment:
a) The right to breathe clean air;
b) The right to utilize and enjoy all natural resources
according to the principle of sustainable development;
c) The right to participate in the formulation, planning,
implementation and monitoring of environmental
policies and programs and in the decision-making
process;
d) The right to participate in the decision-making
process concerning development policies, plans and

programs, projects or activities that may have adverse

impact on the environment and public health;
e) The right to be informed of the nature and extent of
the potential hazard of any activity, undertaking or
project and to be served timely notice of any significant
rise in the level of pollution and the accidental or
deliberate release into the atmosphere of harmful or
hazardous substances;
f) The right of access to public records which a citizen
may need to exercise his or her rights effectively under
this Act;
g) The right to bring action in court or quasi-judicial
bodies to enjoin all activities in violation of
environmental laws and regulations, to compel the
rehabilitation and cleanup of affected area, and to seek
the imposition of penal sanctions against violators of
environmental laws; and
h) The right to bring action in court for compensation of
personal damages resulting from the adverse
environmental and public health impact of a project or
activity.
RULING:
(1) YES. There is no dispute that petitioners have
standing to bring their case before this Court. Moreover,
as held previously, a party's standing before this Court
is a procedural technicality which may, in the exercise of
the Court's discretion, be set aside in view of the
importance of the issue raised. We brush aside this
issue of technicality under the principle of the
transcendental importance to the public, especially so if
these cases demand that they be settled promptly.
(2) NO. plain, speedy and adequate remedy herein
sought by petitioners, i.e., a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to require PUVs to use
CNG, is unavailing. Mandamus is available only to
compel the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law

as a duty. Here, there is no law that mandates the

respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order owners of
motor vehicles to use CNG. Mandamus will not
generally lie from one branch of government to a
coordinate branch, for the obvious reason that neither is
inferior to the other.
It appears that more properly, the legislature should
provide first the specific statutory remedy to the
complex environmental problems bared by herein
petitioners before any judicial recourse by mandamus is
taken.

4
WEST
TOWER
CONDOMINIUM
CORP.
v.
PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORP.
GR NO. 194239
*Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan filed
after the leak in the oil pipeline owned by First Phil.
Industrial Corp (FPIC) in Makati.
FACTS:
1. Resp. FPIC operates 2 pipelines: (a) White Oil
Pipeline (WOPL) which covers Batangas to the
Pandacan Terminal in Manila and transports oil; (b)
Black Oil Pipeline (BOPL) from Batangas to a depot
in Sucat, Paraaque. This system transport nearly
60% of the petroleum needs of Metro Manila,
provinces of Bulacan, Laguna, and Rizal.
2. Despite its more than double safety allowance
against leakage, it leaked it May 2010. The
leakage was suspected after the residents of West
Tower started to smell gas within the condo.
3. A leak was discovered from the wall of its
Basement 2. This was reported by the
management to the Police Dept. of Makati which
referred the case to Bureau of Fire Protection.
4. It came to a point that the leakage became a 1520 drum affair. The residents were compelled to
abandon their units and the power was shut down.
5. UP-Natl Geological Sciences (UPNIGS) was invited
by the city of Makati to determine the source of
the fuel found in FPICs WOPL system. FPIC
admitted this but this was already closed.
Furthermore, it denied liability and placed the
blame on the construction activities on the roads
surrounding West Tower.
6. The condo filed a petition for the issuance of writ
of kalikasan on behalf of its residents and the
surrounding baranggays.
ISSUES:

(1) WON WTC has the legal capacity to represent the

other petitioners apart from its residents YES
(2) WON permanent environmental protection order
should be issued to direct the respondents to perform or
to desist from performing acts in order to protect,
preserve and rehabilitate the affected environment
YES
(3) WON a special trust fund should be opened by
respondents to answer future similar contingencies NO
(4) WON FGC and the directors and officers of resps FPIC
and FGC may be held liable under the environmental
protection order Not in their individual capacities;
alleged liabilities shall be resolved in civil and criminal
cases pending against them
HELD: WTC represents the common interest of its unit
owners and residents. The merits of writ of kalikasan is
not measured by the number of persons who signified
their assent thereto but on the existence of a prima
facie case of a massive environmental disaster. As to
the residents of Brgy Bangkal, they are similarly
situated as the owners and residents of WTC.
The petitioners persistent plea is to convert the
Temporary EPO to a Permanent EPO (PEPO). FPICs
contention that regular testing, cleaning, monitoring,
etc. are already in place that would sufficiently address
the oil leaks. But, CA observed that such measures are
inconclusive and insufficient for detecting leaks and
maintaining the integrity of the pipeline. Thus, it
recommended that FPIC obtain certification from the
DOE a certification that the WOPL is already safe for
commercial operation. SC finds this proper.
A reading of the petition and the motion for partial
reconsideration readily reveals that the prayer is for the
creation of a trust fund for similar future contingencies.
This is clearly outside the limited purpose of a special

trust fund under the Rules of Procedure for

Environmental Cases, which is to rehabilitate or restore
the environment that has presumably already suffered.
Hence, the Court affirms with concurrence the
observation of the appellate court that the prayer is but
a claim for damages, which is prohibited by the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases. As such, the Court
is of the considered view that the creation of a special
trust fund is misplaced.
The Court will refrain from ruling on the finding of the
CA that the individual directors and officers of FPIC and
FGC are not liable due to the explicit rule in the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental cases that in a petition for
a writ of kalikasan, the Court cannot grant the award of
damages
to individual petitioners under Rule 7, Sec. 15(e) of the
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. As duly
noted by the CA, the civil case and criminal complaint
filed by petitioners against respondents are the proper
proceedings to ventilate and determine the individual

liability of respondents, if any, on their exercise of

corporate powers and the management of FPIC relative
to the dire environmental impact of the dumping of
petroleum products stemming from the leak in the
WOPL in Barangay Bangkal, Makati City.
Other matters: FPIC must also strictly comply with the
permits issued by DENR and get certification from them.
DENR is the government agency tasked to implement
the state policy of maintaining a sound ecological
balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the
environment and to promulgate rules and regulations
for the control of water, air, and land pollution. It is
indubitable that the DENR has jurisdiction in overseeing
and supervising the environmental remediation of
Barangay Bangkal, which is adversely affected by the
leak in the WOPL in 2010.