EN BANC DECISION

G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015 LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE Before Us are two consolidated Petitions filed under Rule 65
PROTECTED SEASCAPE TANON STRAIT, E.G., of the 1997 Rules of Court, concerning Service Contract No.
TOOTHED WHALES, DOLPHINS, PORPOISES, AND 46 (SC-46), which allowed the exploration, development, and
OTHER CETACEAN SPECIES, JOINED IN AND exploitation of petroleum resources within Tañon Strait, a
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HUMAN BEINGS narrow passage of water situated between the islands of
GLORIA ESTENZO RAMOS AND ROSE-LIZA EISMA- Negros and Cebu.2
OSORIO, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS LEGAL
GUARDIANS OF THE LESSER LIFE-FORMS AND AS The Petition docketed as G.R. No. 180771 is an original
RESPONSIBLE STEWARDS OF GOD'S Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus, and Injunction, which
CREATIONS, Petitioners, v. SECRETARY ANGELO seeks to enjoin respondents from implementing SC-46 and to
REYES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE have it nullified for willful and gross violation of the 1987
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE), SECRETARY Constitution and certain international and municipal laws.3
JOSE L. ATIENZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF Likewise, the Petition docketed as G.R. No. 181527 is an
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES original Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus,
(DENR), LEONARDO R. SIBBALUCA, DENR which seeks to nullify the Environmental Compliance
REGIONAL DIRECTOR-REGION VII AND IN HIS Certificate (ECC) issued by the Environmental Management
CAPACITY AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE TANON Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural
STRAIT PROTECTED SEASCAPE MANAGEMENT Resources (DENR), Region VII in connection with SC-46; to
BOARD, BUREAU OF FISHERIES AND AQUATIC prohibit respondents from implementing SC-46; and to compel
RESOURCES (BFAR), DIRECTOR MALCOLM I. public respondents to provide petitioners access to the
SARMIENTO, JR., BFAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR pertinent documents involving the Tañon Strait Oil
REGION VII ANDRES M. BOJOS, JAPAN Exploration Project.4
PETROLEUM EXPLORATION CO., LTD. (JAPEX), AS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PHILIPPINE AGENT, SUPPLY ANTECEDENT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., Respondents.
Petitioners in G.R. No. 180771, collectively referred to as the
G.R. No. 181527 "Resident Marine Mammals" in the petition, are the toothed
whales, dolphins, porpoises, and other cetacean species, which
CENTRAL VISAYAS FISHERFOLK DEVELOPMENT inhabit the waters in and around the Tañon Strait. They are
CENTER (FIDEC), CERILO D. ENGARCIAL, RAMON joined by Gloria Estenzo Ramos (Ramos) and Rose-Liza
YANONG, FRANCISCO LABID, IN THEIR PERSONAL Eisma-Osorio (Eisma-Osorio) as their legal guardians and as
CAPACITY AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE friends (to be collectively known as "the Stewards") who
SUBSISTENCE FISHERFOLKS OF THE allegedly empathize with, and seek the protection of, the
MUNICIPALITIES OF ALOGUINSAN AND aforementioned marine species. Also impleaded as an
PINAMUNGAJAN, CEBU, AND THEIR FAMILIES, unwilling co-petitioner is former President Gloria Macapagal-
AND THE PRESENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS Arroyo, for her express declaration and undertaking in the
OF FILIPINOS WHOSE RIGHTS ARE SIMILARLY ASEAN Charter to protect the Tañon Strait, among others.5
AFFECTED, Petitioners, v. SECRETARY ANGELO
REYES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE Petitioners in G.R. No. 181527 are the Central Visayas
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE), JOSE L. Fisherfolk Development Center (FIDEC), a non-stock, non-
ATIENZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF profit, non-governmental organization, established for the
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND welfare of the marginal fisherfolk in Region VII; and Cerilo
NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), LEONARDO R. D. Engarcial (Engarcial), Ramon Yanong (Yanong) and
SIBBALUCA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DENR Francisco Labid (Labid), in their personal capacities and as
REGIONAL DIRECTOR-REGION VII AND AS representatives of the subsistence fisherfolk of the
CHAIRPERSON OF THE TAÑON STRAIT municipalities of Aloguinsan and Pinamungajan, Cebu.
PROTECTED SEASCAPE MANAGEMENT BOARD,
ALAN ARRANGUEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS Named as respondents in both petitions are the late Angelo T.
DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Reyes, as then Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE);
BUREAU-REGION VII, DOE REGIONAL DIRECTOR Jose L. Atienza, as then Secretary of the DENR; Leonardo R.
FOR REGION VIII1 ANTONIO LABIOS, JAPAN Sibbaluca, as then DENR-Regional Director for Region VII
PETROLEUM EXPLORATION CO., LTD. (JAPEX), AS and Chairman of the Tañon Strait Protected Seascape
REPRESENTED BY ITS PHILIPPINE AGENT, SUPPLY Management Board; Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd.
1

OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., Respondent. (JAPEX), a company organized and existing under the laws of
Page

Japan with a Philippine branch office; and Supply Oilfield

Services, Inc. (SOS), as the alleged Philippine agent of
JAPEX. On March 31, 2008, SOS filed a Motion to Strike 17 its name as
a respondent on the ground that it is not the Philippine agent of
In G.R. No. 181527, the following were impleaded as JAPEX. In support of its motion, it submitted the branch office
additional public respondents: Alan C. Arranguez (Arranguez) application of JAPEX,18 wherein the latter's resident agent was
and Antonio Labios (Labios), in their capacities as then clearly identified. SOS claimed that it had acted as a mere
Director of the EMB, Region VII and then Regional Director logistics contractor for JAPEX in its oil and gas exploration
of the DOE, Region VII, respectively.6 activities in the Philippines.

On June 13, 2002, the Government of the Philippines, acting Petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards opposed
through the DOE, entered into a Geophysical Survey and SOS's motion on the ground that it was premature, it was pro-
Exploration Contract-102 (GSEC-102) with JAPEX. This forma, and it was patently dilatory. They claimed that SOS
contract involved geological and geophysical studies of the admitted that "it is in law a (sic) privy to JAPEX" since it did
Tañon Strait. The studies included surface geology, sample the drilling and other exploration activities in Tañon Strait
analysis, and reprocessing of seismic and magnetic data. under the instructions of its principal, JAPEX. They argued
JAPEX, assisted by DOE, also conducted geophysical and that it would be premature to drop SOS as a party as JAPEX
satellite surveys, as well as oil and gas sampling in Tañon had not yet been joined in the case; and that it was
Strait.7 "convenient" for SOS to ask the Court to simply drop its name
from the parties when what it should have done was to either
On December 21, 2004, DOE and JAPEX formally converted notify or ask JAPEX to join it in its motion to enable proper
GSEC-102 into SC-46 for the exploration, development, and substitution. At this juncture, petitioners Resident Marine
production of petroleum resources in a block covering Mammals and Stewards also asked the Court to implead
approximately 2,850 square kilometers offshore the Tañon JAPEX Philippines as a corespondent or as a substitute for its
Strait.8 parent company, JAPEX.19

From May 9 to 18, 2005, JAPEX conducted seismic surveys in On April 8, 2008, the Court resolved to consolidate G.R. No.
and around the Tañon Strait. A multi-channel sub-bottom 180771 and G.R. No. 181527.
profiling covering approximately 751 kilometers was also
done to determine the area's underwater composition.9 On May 26, 2008, the FIDEC manifested20 that they were
adopting in toto the Opposition to Strike with Motion to
JAPEX committed to drill one exploration well during the Implead filed by petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and
second sub-phase of the project. Since the well was to be Stewards in G.R. No. 180771.
drilled in the marine waters of Aloguinsan and Pinamungajan,
where the Tañon Strait was declared a protected seascape in On June 19, 2008, public respondents filed their
1988,10 JAPEX agreed to comply with the Environmental Manifestation21 that they were not objecting to SOS's Motion
Impact Assessment requirements pursuant to Presidential to Strike as it was not JAPEX's resident agent. JAPEX during
Decree No. 1586, entitled "Establishing An Environmental all this time, did not file any comment at all.
Impact Statement System, Including Other Environmental
Management Related Measures And For Other Purposes."11 Thus, on February 7, 2012, this Court, in an effort to ensure
that all the parties were given ample chance and opportunity to
On January 31, 2007, the Protected Area Management answer the issues herein, issued a Resolution directing the
Board12 of the Tañon Strait (PAMB-Tañon Strait) issued Court's process servicing unit to again serve the parties with a
Resolution No. 2007-001,13 wherein it adopted the Initial copy of the September 23, 2008 Resolution of the Court,
Environmental Examination (IEE) commissioned by JAPEX, which gave due course to the petitions in G.R. Nos. 180771
and favorably recommended the approval of JAPEX's and 181527, and which required the parties to submit their
application for an ECC. respective memoranda. The February 7, 2012
Resolution22 reads as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On March 6, 2007, the EMB of DENR Region VII granted an G.R. No. 180771 (Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected
ECC to the DOE and JAPEX for the offshore oil and gas Seascape Tañon Strait, e.g., Toothed Whales, Dolphins,
exploration project in Tañon Strait.14 Months later, on Porpoises and Other Cetacean Species, et al. vs. Hon. Angelo
November 16, 2007, JAPEX began to drill an exploratory Reyes, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of
well, with a depth of 3,150 meters, near Pinamungajan town in Energy, et al.) and G.R. No. 181527 (Central Visayas
the western Cebu Province.15 This drilling lasted until Fisherfolk Development Center, et al. vs. Hon. Angelo Reyes,
February 8, 2008.16 et al.). - The Court Resolved to direct the Process Servicing
Unit to RE-SEND the resolution dated September 23, 2008 to
It was in view of the foregoing state of affairs that petitioners the following parties and counsel, together with this
applied to this Court for redress, via two separate original resolution:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
petitions both dated December 17, 2007, wherein they
Atty. 20th Floor Pearlbank Centre
2

commonly seek that respondents be enjoined from

Aristeo O.
Page

implementing SC-46 for, among others, violation of the 1987

Cariño
Constitution.
 Counsel for 146 Valero Street real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or
Respondent injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the
Supply avails of the suit. Contrary to JAPEX Philippines, Ltd.'s
Oilfield Salcedo Village, Makati City allegation that it is a completely distinct corporation, which
Services, should not be confused with JAPEX Company, Ltd., JAPEX
Inc. Philippines, Ltd. is a mere branch office, established by
    JAPEX Company, Ltd. for the purpose of carrying out the
JAPEX 20th Floor Pearlbank Centre latter's business transactions here in the Philippines. Thus,
Philippines JAPEX Philippines, Ltd., has no separate personality from its
Ltd. mother foreign corporation, the party impleaded in this case.
  146 Valero Street
  Salcedo Village, Makati City Moreover, Section 128 of the Corporation Code provides for
    the responsibilities and duties of a resident agent of a foreign
JAPEX 19th Floor Pearlbank Centre corporation:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Philippines SECTION 128. Resident agent; service of process. — The
Ltd. Securities and Exchange Commission shall require as a
c/o Atty. 146 Valero Street condition precedent to the issuance of the license to transact
Maria business in the Philippines by any foreign corporation that
Farah Z.G. such corporation file with the Securities and Exchange
Nicolas- Salcedo Village, Makati City Commission a written power of attorney designating some
person who must be a resident of the Philippines, on whom
Suchianco
any summons and other legal processes may be served in all
   
actions or other legal proceedings against such corporation,
Atty. Suite 2404 Discovery Centre
and consenting that service upon such resident agent shall be
Maria
admitted and held as valid as if served upon the duly
Farah
authorized officers of the foreign corporation at its home
Z.G.
office. Any such foreign corporation shall likewise execute
Nicolas- 25 ADB Avenue
and file with the Securities and Exchange Commission an
Suchianco agreement or stipulation, executed by the proper authorities of
Resident Ortigas Center, Pasig City said corporation, in form and substance as follows:
Agent of
JAPEX "The (name of foreign corporation) does hereby stipulate and
Philippines   agree, in consideration of its being granted by the Securities
Ltd. and Exchange Commission a license to transact business in the
This Resolution was personally served to the above parties, at Philippines, that if at any time said corporation shall cease to
the above addresses on February 23, 2012. On March 20, transact business in the Philippines, or shall be without any
2012, JAPEX Philippines, Ltd. (JAPEX PH), by way of resident agent in the Philippines on whom any summons or
special appearance, filed a Motion to Admit23 its Motion for other legal processes may be served, then in any action or
Clarification,24 wherein JAPEX PH requested to be clarified as proceeding arising out of any business or transaction which
to whether or not it should deem the February 7, 2012 occurred in the Philippines, service of any summons or other
Resolution as this Court's Order of its inclusion in the case, as legal process may be made upon the Securities and Exchange
it has not been impleaded. It also alleged that JAPEX PH had Commission and that such service shall have the same force
already stopped exploration activities in the Tañon Strait way and effect as if made upon the duly-authorized officers of the
back in 2008, rendering this case moot. corporation at its home office."
On March 22, 2012, JAPEX PH, also by special appearance, Whenever such service of summons or other process shall be
filed a Motion for Extension of Time25 to file its made upon the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Memorandum. It stated that since it received the February 7, Commission shall, within ten (10) days thereafter, transmit by
2012 Resolution on February 23, 2012, it had until March 22, mail a copy of such summons or other legal process to the
2012 to file its Memorandum. JAPEX PH then asked for an corporation at its home or principal office. The sending of
additional thirty days, supposedly to give this Court some time such copy by the Commission shall be a necessary part of and
to consider its Motion for Clarification. shall complete such service. All expenses incurred by the
Commission for such service shall be paid in advance by the
On April 24, 2012, this Court issued a Resolution26 granting party at whose instance the service is made.
JAPEX PH's Motion to Admit its Motion for Clarification.
This Court, addressing JAPEX PH's Motion for Clarification, In case of a change of address of the resident agent, it shall be
held:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary his or its duty to immediately notify in writing the Securities
With regard to its Motion for Clarification (By Special and Exchange Commission of the new address.
3

Appearance) dated March 19, 2012, this Court considers

It is clear from the foregoing provision that the function of a
Page

JAPEX Philippines. Ltd. as a real party-in-interest in these

cases. Under Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Court, a resident agent is to receive summons or legal processes that
may be served in all actions or other legal proceedings against strict compliance with the procedural and substantive
the foreign corporation. These cases have been prosecuted in requirements under the Environmental Impact Assessment
the name of JAPEX Company, Ltd., and JAPEX Philippines system, the Fisheries Code, and their implementing rules and
Ltd., as its branch office and resident agent, had been regulations.34 It further claims that despite several requests for
receiving the various resolutions from this Court, as evidenced copies of all the documents pertaining to the project in Taflon
by Registry Return Cards signed by its representatives. Strait, only copies of the PAMB-Tañon Strait Resolution and
the ECC were given to the fisherfolk.35
And in the interest of justice, this Court resolved to grant
JAPEX PH's motion for extension of time to file its
memorandum, and was given until April 21, 2012, as prayed Public Respondents' Counter-Allegations
for, within which to comply with the submission.27
Public respondents, through the Solicitor General, contend that
Without filing its Memorandum, JAPEX PH, on May 14, petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards have no
2012, filed a motion, asking this Court for an additional thirty legal standing to file the present petition; that SC-46 does not
days to file its Memorandum, to be counted from May 8, 2012. violate the 1987 Constitution and the various laws cited in the
It justified its request by claiming that this Court's April 24, petitions; that the ECC was issued in accordance with existing
2012 Resolution was issued past its requested deadline for laws and regulations; that public respondents may not be
filing, which was on April 21, 2012.28 compelled by mandamus to furnish petitioners copies of all
documents relating to SC-46; and that all the petitioners failed
On June 19, 2012, this Court denied JAPEX PH's second to show that they are entitled to injunctive relief. They further
request for additional time to file its Memorandum and contend that the issues raised in these petitions have been
dispensed with such filing. rendered moot and academic by the fact that SC-46 had been
mutually terminated by the parties thereto effective June 21,
Since petitioners had already filed their respective 2008.36
memoranda,29 and public respondents had earlier filed a
Manifestation30 that they were adopting their Comment dated ISSUES
March 31, 2008 as their memorandum, this Court submitted
the case for decision.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary The following are the issues posited by petitioners Resident
Marine Mammals and Stewards in G.R. No.
Petitioners' Allegations 180771:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Protesting the adverse ecological impact of JAPEX's oil I. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS
exploration activities in the Tañon Strait, petitioners Resident HAVE LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THE INSTANT
Marine Mammals and Stewards aver that a study made after PETITION;
the seismic survey showed that the fish catch was reduced
drastically by 50 to 70 percent. They claim that before the II. WHETHER OR NOT SERVICE CONTRACT NO.
seismic survey, the average harvest per day would be from 15 46 IS VIOLAT[IVE] OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE
to 20 kilos; but after the activity, the fisherfolk could only CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES;
catch an average of 1 to 2 kilos a day. They attribute this
"reduced fish catch" to the destruction of the "payao" also III. WHETHER OR NOT THE ON-GOING
known as the "fish aggregating device" or "artificial EXPLORATION AND PROPOSED EXPLOITATION
reef."31 Petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards FOR OIL AND NATURAL GAS AT, AROUND, AND
also impute the incidences of "fish kill"32 observed by some of UNDERNEATH THE MARINE WATERS OF THE
the local fisherfolk to the seismic survey. And they further TANON STRAIT PROTECTED SEASCAPE IS
allege that the ECC obtained by private respondent JAPEX is INCONSISTENT WITH THE PHILIPPINE
invalid because public consultations and discussions with the COMMITMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL
affected stakeholders, a pre-requisite to the issuance of the ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND INSTRUMENTS;
ECC, were not held prior to the ECC's issuance. AND

In its separate petition, petitioner FIDEC confirms petitioners IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE ISSUANCE OF THE
Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards' allegations of ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
reduced fish catch and lack of public consultations or (ECC) IN ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS
discussions with the fisherfolk and other stakeholders prior to AND HABITATS OF MARINE WILDLIFE AND
the issuance of the ECC. Moreover, it alleges that during the ENDANGERED SPECIES IS LEGAL AND PROPER.37
seismic surveys and drilling, it was barred from entering and
fishing within a 7-kilometer radius from the point where the Meanwhile, in G.R. No. 181527, petitioner FIDEC presented
oilrig was located, an area greater than the 1.5-kilometer the following issues for our
radius "exclusion zone" stated in the IEE.33 It also agrees in the consideration:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
allegation that public respondents DENR and EMB abused
4

their discretion when they issued an ECC to public respondent

Page

I. WHETHER OR NOT SERVICE CONTRACT NO.

DOE and private respondent JAPEX without ensuring the 46 EXECUTED BETWEEN RESPONDENTS DOE
 AND JAPEX SHOULD BE NULLIFIED AND SET 4) The case is capable of repetition yet evading review. 39
ASIDE FOR BEING IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE In this case, despite the termination of SC-46, this Court
CONSTITUTION AND APPLICABLE LAWS; deems it necessary to resolve these consolidated petitions as
almost all of the foregoing exceptions are present in this case.
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE OFF-SHORE OIL Both petitioners allege that SC-46 is violative of the
EXPLORATION CONTEMPLATED UNDER Constitution, the environmental and livelihood issues raised
SERVICE CONTRACT NO. 46 IS LEGALLY undoubtedly affect the public's interest, and the respondents'
PERMISSIBLE WITHOUT A LAW BEING DULY contested actions are capable of
PASSED EXPRESSLY FOR THE PURPOSE; repetition.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

III. WHETHER OR NOT THE OIL EXPLORATION Procedural Issues

BEING CONDUCTED WITHIN THE TANON Locus Standi of Petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and
STRAIT PROTECTED SEASCAPE VIOLATES THE Stewards
RIGHTS AND LEGAL PROTECTION GRANTED TO
PETITIONERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND The Resident Marine Mammals, through the Stewards, "claim"
APPLICABLE LAWS. that they have the legal standing to file this action since they
stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment in this
IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE ISSUANCE OF THE suit.40 Citing Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,41 they also assert their
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE right to sue for the faithful performance of international and
(ECC) FOR SUCH AN ENVIRONMENTALLY municipal environmental laws created in their favor and for
CRITICAL PROJECT INSIDE AN their benefit. In this regard, they propound that they have the
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA SUCH AS right to demand that they be accorded the benefits granted to
THE TANON STRAIT PROTECTED SEASCAPE them in multilateral international instruments that the
CONFORMED TO LAW AND EXISTING RULES Philippine Government had signed, under the concept of
AND REGULATIONS ON THE MATTER. stipulation pour autrui.42

V. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENTS MAY For their part, the Stewards contend that there should be no
BE COMPELLED BY MANDAMUS TO FURNISH question of their right to represent the Resident Marine
PETITIONERS WITH COPIES OF THE Mammals as they have stakes in the case as forerunners of a
DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE TANON campaign to build awareness among the affected residents of
STRAIT OIL EXPLORATION PROJECT.38 Tañon Strait and as stewards of the environment since the
primary steward, the Government, had failed in its duty to
In these consolidated petitions, this Court has determined that protect the environment pursuant to the public trust doctrine. 43
the various issues raised by the petitioners may be condensed
into two primary issues: Petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards also aver
that this Court may lower the benchmark in locus standi as an
exercise of epistolary jurisdiction.44
I. Procedural Issue: Locus Standi of the Resident
Marine Mammals and Stewards, petitioners in G.R. No.
In opposition, public respondents argue that the Resident
180771; and
Marine Mammals have no standing because Section 1, Rule 3
of the Rules of Court requires parties to an action to be either
II. Main Issue: Legality of Sendee Contract No. 46. natural or juridical persons, viz.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. - Only
DISCUSSION natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may
be parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff may refer to the
At the outset, this Court makes clear that the '"moot and claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the
academic principle' is not a magical formula that can third (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff. The term "defendant" may
automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case." Courts refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a
have decided cases otherwise moot and academic under the counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.)-
following exceptions: party defendant.

1) There is a grave violation of the Constitution; The public respondents also contest the applicability of Oposa,
pointing out that the petitioners therein were all natural
2) The exceptional character of the situation and the persons, albeit some of them were still unborn.45
paramount public interest is involved;
As regards the Stewards, the public respondents likewise
3) The constitutional issue raised requires formulation of challenge their claim of legal standing on the ground that they
are representing animals, which cannot be parties to an action.
5

controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the

Moreover, the public respondents argue that the Stewards are
Page

public; and
not the real parties-in-interest for their failure to show how
they stand to be benefited or injured by the decision in this Rule 3
case.46 Parties to Civil Actions

Invoking the alter ego principle in political law, the public Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. - Only
respondents claim that absent any proof that former President natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may
Arroyo had disapproved of their acts in entering into and be parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff may refer to the
implementing SC-46, such acts remain to be her own.47 claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the
third (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff. The term "defendant" may
The public respondents contend that since petitioners Resident refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a
Marine Mammals and Stewards' petition was not brought in counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.)-
the name of a real party-in-interest, it should be dismissed for party defendant.
failure to state a cause of action.48
Sec. 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is the party
The issue of whether or not animals or even inanimate objects who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
should be given legal standing in actions before courts of law suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless
is not new in the field of animal rights and environmental law. otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must
Petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards cited the be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
1972 United States case Sierra Club v. Rogers C.B. interest.
Morton,49 wherein Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting to
the conventional thought on legal standing, Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. - Where the action is
opined:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or
The critical question of "standing" would be simplified and someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be
also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the
allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an
agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a
about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his
bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage, x own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may
x x. sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the
contract involves things belonging to the principal.
Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship It had been suggested by animal rights advocates and
has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime environmentalists that not only natural and juridical persons
purposes. The corporation sole - a creature of ecclesiastical should be given legal standing because of the difficulty for
law - is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its persons, who cannot show that they by themselves are real
cases. The ordinary corporation is a "person" for purposes of parties-in-interests, to bring actions in representation of these
the adjudicatory processes, whether it represents proprietary, animals or inanimate objects. For this reason, many
spiritual, aesthetic, or charitable causes. environmental cases have been dismissed for failure of the
petitioner to show that he/she would be directly injured or
So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, affected by the outcome of the case. However, in our
lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, jurisdiction, locus standi in environmental cases has been
or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern
given a more liberalized approach. While developments in
technology and modem life. The river, for example, is the Philippine legal theory and jurisprudence have not progressed
living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes—fish, as far as Justice Douglas's paradigm of legal standing for
aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and inanimate objects, the current trend moves towards
all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or simplification of procedures and facilitating court access in
who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as environmental cases.
plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it.
Those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of Recently, the Court passed the landmark Rules of Procedure
water—whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a for Environmental Cases,51 which allow for a "citizen suit,"
logger—must be able to speak for the values which the river and permit any Filipino citizen to file an action before our
represents and which are threatened with courts for violations of our environmental
destruction.50 (Citations omitted.) laws:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The primary reason animal rights advocates and SEC. 5. Citizen suit. - Any Filipino citizen in representation
environmentalists seek to give animals and inanimate objects of others, including minors or generations yet unborn, may
standing is due to the need to comply with the strict file an action to enforce rights or obligations under
requirements in bringing a suit to court. Our own 1997 Rules environmental laws. Upon the filing of a citizen suit, the
of Court demand that parties to a suit be either natural or court shall issue an order which shall contain a brief
juridical persons, or entities authorized by law. It further description of the cause of action and the reliefs prayed for,
necessitates the action to be brought in the name of the real requiring all interested parties to manifest their interest to
6

party-in-interest, even if filed by a intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from notice
Page

representative, viz.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order once in a

newspaper of a general circulation in the Philippines or furnish species. The Stewards, Ramos and Eisma-Osorio, having
all affected barangays copies of said order. shown in their petition that there may be possible violations of
laws concerning the habitat of the Resident Marine Mammals,
Citizen suits filed under R.A. No. 8749 and R.A. No. 9003 are therefore declared to possess the legal standing to file this
shall be governed by their respective provisions.52 (Emphasis petition.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
ours.)
Explaining the rationale for this rule, the Court, in the Impleading Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as
Annotations to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental an Unwilling Co-Petitioner
Cases, commented:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Citizen suit. To further encourage the protection of the Petitioners Stewards in G.R. No. 180771 impleaded as an
environment, the Rules enable litigants enforcing unwilling co-petitioner former President Gloria Macapagal-
environmental rights to file their cases as citizen suits. This Arroyo for the following reasons, which we
provision liberalizes standing for all cases filed enforcing quote:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
environmental laws and collapses the traditional rule on Her Excellency Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, also of legal age,
personal and direct interest, on the principle that humans Filipino and resident of Malacañang Palace, Manila
are stewards of nature. The terminology of the text reflects Philippines. Steward Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo happens to be
the doctrine first enunciated in Oposa v. Factoran, insofar as it the incumbent President of the Philippine Islands. She is
refers to minors and generations yet unborn.53 (Emphasis personally impleaded in this suit as an unwilling co-petitioner
supplied, citation omitted.) by reason of her express declaration and undertaking under the
recently signed ASEAN Charter to protect Your Petitioners'
Although this petition was filed in 2007, years before the habitat, among others. She is meantime dominated as an
effectivity of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, unwilling co-petitioner due to lack of material time in seeking
it has been consistently held that rules of procedure "may be her signature and imprimatur hereof and due to possible legal
retroactively applied to actions pending and undetermined at complications that may hereafter arise by reason of her official
the time of their passage and will not violate any right of a relations with public respondents under the alter ego principle
person who may feel that he is adversely affected, inasmuch as in political law.58cralawlawlibrary
there is no vested rights in rules of procedure." 54
This is incorrect.
Elucidating on this doctrine, the Court, in Systems Factors
Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission55 held Section 10, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court
that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Remedial statutes or statutes relating to remedies or modes of Sec. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. - If the consent of any party
procedure, which do not create new or take away vested rights, who should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained, he may
but only operate in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated in
of rights already existing, do not come within the legal the complaint.
conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against Under the foregoing rule, when the consent of a party who
retroactive operation of statutes. Statutes regulating the should be joined as a plaintiff cannot be obtained, he or she
procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to may be made a party defendant to the case. This will put the
actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. unwilling party under the jurisdiction of the Court, which can
Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent, properly implead him or her through its processes. The
x x x. unwilling party's name cannot be simply included in a petition,
Moreover, even before the Rules of Procedure for without his or her knowledge and consent, as such would be a
Environmental Cases became effective, this Court had already denial of due process.
taken a permissive position on the issue of locus standi in
environmental cases. In Oposa, we allowed the suit to be Moreover, the reason cited by the petitioners Stewards for
brought in the name of generations yet unborn "based on the including former President Macapagal-Arroyo in their
concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right petition, is not sufficient to implead her as an unwilling co-
to a balanced and healthful ecology is petitioner. Impleading the former President as an unwilling co-
concerned."56 Furthermore, we said that the right to a balanced petitioner, for an act she made in the performance of the
and healthful ecology, a right that does not even need to be functions of her office, is contrary to the public policy against
stated in our Constitution as it is assumed to exist from the embroiling the President in suits, "to assure the exercise of
inception of humankind, carries with it the correlative duty to Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or
refrain from impairing the environment.57 distraction, considering that being the Chief Executive of the
Government is a job that, aside from requiring all of the office
In light of the foregoing, the need to give the Resident Marine holder's time, also demands undivided attention."59
Mammals legal standing has been eliminated by our Rules,
which allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to Therefore, former President Macapagal-Arroyo cannot be
bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws. It is worth impleaded as one of the petitioners in this suit. Thus, her name
7

noting here that the Stewards are joined as real parties in the is stricken off the title of this
Page

Petition and not just in representation of the named cetacean case.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Main Issue: Legality of Service Contract No. 46 such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint
venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino
Service Contract No. 46 vis-à-vis Section 2, Article XII of citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per
the centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such
1987 Constitution agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five
years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and
Petitioners maintain that SC-46 transgresses the Jura under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law.
Regalia Provision or paragraph 1, Section 2, Article XII of the In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries,
1987 Constitution because JAPEX is 100% Japanese- or industrial uses other than the development of water power,
owned.60 Furthermore, the FIDEC asserts that SC-46 cannot be beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
considered as a technical and financial assistance agreement
validly executed under paragraph 4 of the same The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its
provision.61 The petitioners claim that La Bugal-B'laan Tribal archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic
Association, Inc. v. Ramos62 laid down the guidelines for a zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino
valid service contract, one of which is that there must exist a citizens.
general law for oil exploration before a service contract may
be entered into by the Government. The petitioners posit that The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of
the service contract in La Bugal is presumed to have complied natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative
with the requisites of (a) legislative enactment of a general law fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and
after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution (such as Republic fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
Act No. 7942, or the Philippine Mining Law of 1995,
governing mining contracts) and (b) presidential notification. The President may enter into agreements with foreign-
The petitioners thus allege that the ruling in La Bugal, which owned corporations involving either technical or financial
involved mining contracts under Republic Act No. 7942, does assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and
not apply in this case.63 The petitioners also argue that utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
Presidential Decree No. 87 or the Oil Exploration and according to the general terms and conditions provided by
Development Act of 1972 cannot legally justify SC-46 as it is law, based on real contributions to the economic growth
deemed to have been repealed by the 1987 Constitution and and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the
subsequent laws, which enunciate new policies concerning the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific
environment.64 In addition, petitioners in G.R. No. 180771 and technical resources.
claim that paragraphs 2 and 3 of Section 2, Article XII of the
1987 Constitution mandate the exclusive use and enjoyment The President shall notify the Congress of every contract
by the Filipinos of our natural resources, 65 and paragraph 4 entered into in accordance with this provision, within
does not speak of service contracts but of FTAAs or Financial thirty days from its execution. (Emphases ours.)
Technical Assistance Agreements.66 This Court has previously settled the issue of whether service
contracts are still allowed under the 1987 Constitution. In La
The public respondents again controvert the petitioners' claims Bugal, we held that the deletion of the words "service
and asseverate that SC-46 does not violate Section 2, Article contracts" in the 1987 Constitution did not amount to a ban on
XII of the 1987 Constitution. They hold that SC-46 does not them per se. In fact, in that decision, we quoted in length,
fall under the coverage of paragraph 1 but instead, under
portions of the deliberations of the members of the
paragraph 4 of Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution Constitutional Commission (ConCom) to show that in
on FTAAs. They also insist that paragraphs 2 and 3, which deliberating on paragraph 4, Section 2, Article XII, they were
refer to the grant of exclusive fishing right to Filipinos, are not actually referring to service contracts as understood in the
applicable to SC-46 as the contract does not grant exclusive 1973 Constitution, albeit with safety measures to eliminate or
fishing rights to JAPEX nor does it otherwise impinge on the minimize the abuses prevalent during the martial law regime,
FIDEC's right to preferential use of communal marine and to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
fishing resources.67 Summation of the ConCom Deliberations
Ruling of the Court On the legality of Service Contract No.
46 vis-a-vis Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution At this point, we sum up the matters established, based on a
careful reading of the ConCom deliberations, as follows:
The petitioners insist that SC-46 is null and void for having
violated Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which In their deliberations on what was to become paragraph 4, the
reads as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary framers used the term service contracts in referring
Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, to agreements x x x involving either technical or financial
coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential assistance.
energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna,
and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the They spoke of service contracts as the concept was understood
exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall in the 1973 Constitution.
8

not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization

Page

of natural resources shall be under the full control and It was obvious from their discussions that they were not about
supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake
to ban or eradicate service contracts. requirements:

Instead, they were plainly crafting provisions to put in place (1) The service contract shall be crafted in accordance with a
safeguards that would eliminate or minimize the abuses general law that will set standard or uniform terms, conditions
prevalent during the marital law regime. In brief, they were and requirements, presumably to attain a certain uniformity in
going to permit service contracts with foreign corporations as provisions and avoid the possible insertion of terms
contractors, but with safety measures to prevent abuses, as an disadvantageous to the country.
exception to the general norm established in the first
paragraph of Section 2 of Article XII. This provision reserves (2) The President shall be the signatory for the government
or limits to Filipino citizens and corporations at least 60 because, supposedly before an agreement is presented to the
percent of which is owned by such citizens — the exploration, President for signature, it will have been vetted several times
development and utilization of natural resources. over at different levels to ensure that it conforms to law and
can withstand public scrutiny.
This provision was prompted by the perceived insufficiency of
Filipino capital and the felt need for foreign investments in the (3) Within thirty days of the executed agreement, the President
EDU of minerals and petroleum resources. shall report it to Congress to give that branch of government
an opportunity to look over the agreement and interpose
The framers for the most part debated about the sort of timely objections, if any.69cralawlawlibrary
safeguards that would be considered adequate and reasonable. Adhering to the aforementioned guidelines, this Court finds
But some of them, having more "radical" leanings, wanted to that SC-46 is indeed null and void for noncompliance with the
ban service contracts altogether; for them, the provision would requirements of the 1987 Constitution.
permit aliens to exploit and benefit from the nation's natural
resources, which they felt should be reserved only for 1. The General Law on Oil Exploration
Filipinos.
The disposition, exploration, development, exploitation, and
In the explanation of their votes, the individual commissioners utilization of indigenous petroleum in the Philippines are
were heard by the entire body. They sounded off their governed by Presidential Decree No. 87 or the Oil Exploration
individual opinions, openly enunciated their philosophies, and and Development Act of 1972. This was enacted by then
supported or attacked the provisions with fervor. Everyone's President Ferdinand Marcos to promote the discovery and
viewpoint was heard. production of indigenous petroleum through the utilization of
In the final voting, the Article on the National Economy and government and/or local or foreign private resources to yield
Patrimony — including paragraph 4 allowing service contracts the maximum benefit to the Filipino people and the revenues
with foreign corporations as an exception to the general norm to the Philippine Government.70
in paragraph 1 of Section 2 of the same article — was
resoundingly approved by a vote of 32 to 7, with 2 Contrary to the petitioners' argument, Presidential Decree No.
abstentions. 87, although enacted in 1972, before the adoption of the 1987
Constitution, remains to be a valid law unless otherwise
Agreements Involving Technical Or Financial Assistance repealed, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Are Service Contracts with Safeguards ARTICLE XVIII - TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
From the foregoing, we are impelled to conclude that the
Section 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders,
phrase agreements involving either technical or financial
proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive
assistance, referred to in paragraph 4, are in fact service
issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain
contracts. But unlike those of the 1973 variety, the new ones
operative until amended, repealed, or revoked.
are between foreign corporations acting as contractors on the
one hand; and on the other, the government as principal or If there were any intention to repeal Presidential Decree No.
"owner" of the works. In the new service contracts, the foreign 87, it would have been done expressly by Congress. For
contractors provide capital, technology and technical know- instance, Republic Act No. 7160, more popularly known as the
how, and managerial expertise in the creation and operation of Local Government Code of 1991, expressly repealed a number
large-scale mining/extractive enterprises; and the government, of laws, including a specific provision in Presidential Decree
through its agencies (DENR, MGB), actively exercises control No. 87, viz.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
and supervision over the entire operation.68cralawlawlibrary SECTION 534. Repealing Clause. — (a) Batas Pambansa Blg.
337, otherwise known as the "Local Government Code,"
In summarizing the matters discussed in the ConCom, we
Executive Order No. 112 (1987), and Executive Order No. 319
established that paragraph 4, with the safeguards in place,
(1988) are hereby repealed.
is the exception to paragraph 1, Section 2 of Article XII.
The following are the safeguards this Court enumerated in La
(b) Presidential Decree Nos. 684, 1191, 1508 and such other
Bugal:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
decrees, orders, instructions, memoranda and issuances related
Such service contracts may be entered into only with respect
9

to or concerning the barangay are hereby repealed.

to minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils. The grant
Page

thereof is subject to several safeguards, among which are these

(c) The provisions of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of Republic Act No.
1939 regarding hospital fund; Section 3, a (3) and b (2) of requirements for service contracts involving oil exploration
Republic Act No. 5447 regarding the Special Education Fund; and extraction.
Presidential Decree No. 144 as amended by Presidential
Decree Nos. 559 and 1741; Presidential Decree No. 231 as But note must be made at this point that while Presidential
amended; Presidential Decree No. 436 as amended by Decree No. 87 may serve as the general law upon which a
Presidential Decree No. 558; and Presidential Decree Nos. service contract for petroleum exploration and extraction may
381, 436, 464, 477, 526, 632, 752, and 1136 are hereby be authorized, as will be discussed below, the exploitation and
repealed and rendered of no force and effect. utilization of this energy resource in the present case may be
allowed only through a law passed by Congress, since the
(d) Presidential Decree No. 1594 is hereby repealed insofar as Tañon Strait is a NIPAS75 area.
it governs locally-funded projects.
2. President was not the signatory to SC-46 and the same
(e) The following provisions are hereby repealed or amended was not submitted to Congress
insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this
Code: Sections 2, 16 and 29 of Presidential Decree No. While the Court finds that Presidential Decree No. 87 is
704; Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 87, as amended; sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a general law, the
Sections 52, 53, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 74 of absence of the two other conditions, that the President be a
Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended; and Section 16 of signatory to SC-46, and that Congress be notified of such
Presidential Decree No. 972, as amended, and contract, renders it null and void.

(f) All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, As SC-46 was executed in 2004, its terms should have
executive orders, proclamations and administrative conformed not only to the provisions of Presidential Decree
regulations, or part or parts thereof which are inconsistent with No. 87, but also to those of the 1987 Constitution. The Civil
any of the provisions of this Code are hereby repealed or Code provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
modified accordingly. (Emphasis supplied.) ARTICLE 1306. The contracting parties may establish such
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem
This Court could not simply assume that while Presidential
convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals,
Decree No. 87 had not yet been expressly repealed, it had been
good customs, public order, or public policy. (Italics ours.)
impliedly repealed. As we held in Villareña v. The
Commission on Audit,71 "[i]mplied repeals are not lightly In Heirs of San Miguel v. Court of Appeals,76 this Court held
presumed." It is a settled rule that when laws are in conflict that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
with one another, every effort must be exerted to reconcile It is basic that the law is deemed written into every contract.
them. In Republic of the Philippines v. Marcopper Mining Although a contract is the law between the parties, the
Corporation,72 we said:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary provisions of positive law which regulate contracts are deemed
The two laws must be absolutely incompatible, and a clear written therein and shall limit and govern the relations
finding thereof must surface, before the inference of implied between the parties, x x x. (Citations omitted.)
repeal may be drawn. The rule is expressed in the Paragraph 4, Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
maxim, interpretare et concordare leqibus est optimus requires that the President himself enter into any service
interpretendi, i.e., every statute must be so interpreted and contract for the exploration of petroleum. SC-46 appeared to
brought into accord with other laws as to form a uniform have been entered into and signed only by the DOE through its
system of jurisprudence. The fundament is that the legislature then Secretary, Vicente S. Perez, Jr., contrary to the said
should be presumed to have known the existing laws on the constitutional requirement. Moreover, public respondents have
subject and not have enacted conflicting statutes. Hence, all neither shown nor alleged that Congress was subsequently
doubts must be resolved against any implied repeal, and all notified of the execution of such contract.
efforts should be exerted in order to harmonize and give effect
to all laws on the subject. (Citation omitted.) Public respondents' implied argument that based on the "alter
Moreover, in cases where the statute seems to be in conflict ego principle," their acts are also that of then President
with the Constitution, but a construction that it is in harmony Macapagal-Arroyo's, cannot apply in this case. In Joson v.
with the Constitution is also possible, that construction should Torres,77 we explained the concept of the alter ego principle or
be preferred.73 This Court, in Pangandaman v. Commission on the doctrine of qualified political agency and its limit in this
Elections74 expounding on this point, wise:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
pronounced:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Under this doctrine, which recognizes the establishment of a
It is a basic precept in statutory construction that a statute single executive, all executive and administrative
should be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution and organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the
that the spirit, rather than the letter of the law determines its heads of the various executive departments are assistants and
construction; for that reason, a statute must be read according agents of the Chief Executive, and, except in cases where the
to its spirit and intent, x x x. (Citation omitted.) Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to
10

act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that

Consequently, we find no merit in petitioners' contention that
he act personally, the multifarious executive and
SC-46 is prohibited on the ground that there is no general law
Page

administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed

prescribing the standard or uniform terms, conditions, and
by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the
Secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated Even under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 87, it is
in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or required that the Petroleum Board, now the DOE, obtain the
reprobated by the Chief Executive presumptively the acts of President's approval for the execution of any contract under
the Chief Executive. (Emphasis ours, citation omitted.) said statute, as shown in the following
provision:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
While the requirements in executing service contracts in
SECTION 5. Execution of contract authorized in this Act. -
paragraph 4, Section 2 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
Every contract herein authorized shall, subject to the approval
seem like mere formalities, they, in reality, take on a much
of the President, be executed by the Petroleum Board created
bigger role. As we have explained in La Bugal, they are the
in this Act, after due public notice pre-qualification and public
safeguards put in place by the framers of the Constitution to
bidding or concluded through negotiations. In case bids are
"eliminate or minimize the abuses prevalent during the martial
requested or if requested no bid is submitted or the bids
law regime."78 Thus, they are not just mere formalities, which
submitted are rejected by the Petroleum Board for being
will only render a contract unenforceable but not void, if not
disadvantageous to the Government, the contract may be
complied with. They are requirements placed, not just in an
concluded through negotiation.
ordinary statute, but in the fundamental law, the non-
observance of which will nullify the contract. Elucidating on
In opening contract areas and in selecting the best offer for
the concept of a "constitution," this Court, in Manila Prince
petroleum operations, any of the following alternative
Hotel v. Government Service Insurance
procedures may be resorted to by the Petroleum Board, subject
System,79 held:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
to prior approval of the President [.]
A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the
governance and administration of a nation. It is supreme, Even if we were inclined to relax the requirement in La
imperious, absolute and unalterable except by the authority Bugal to harmonize the 1987 Constitution with the
from which it emanates. It has been defined as the aforementioned provision of Presidential Decree No. 87, it
fundamental and paramount law of the nation. It prescribes must be shown that the government agency or subordinate
the permanent framework of a system of government, assigns official has been authorized by the President to enter into such
to the different departments their respective powers and duties, service contract for the government. Otherwise, it should be at
and establishes certain fixed principles on which government least shown that the President subsequently approved of such
is founded. The fundamental conception in other words is that contract explicitly. None of these circumstances is evident in
it is a supreme law to which all other laws must conform and the case at bar.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
in accordance with which all private rights must be determined
and all public authority administered. Under the doctrine of Service Contract No. 46 vis-a-vis Other Laws
constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any
norm of the constitution that law or contract whether Petitioners in G.R. No. 180771 claim that SC-46 violates
promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch Section 27 of Republic Act. No. 9147 or the Wildlife
or entered into by private persons for private purposes is Resources Conservation and Protection Act, which bans all
null and void and without any force and effect. Thus, since marine exploration and exploitation of oil and gas deposits.
the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme They also aver that Section 14 of Republic Act No. 7586 or
law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992
contract. (Emphasis ours.) (NIPAS Act), which allows the exploration of protected areas
As this Court has held in La Bugal, our Constitution requires for the purpose of information-gathering, has been repealed by
that the President himself be the signatory of service Section 27 of Republic Act No. 9147. The said petitioners
agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving the further claim that SC-46 is anathema to Republic Act No.
exploration, development, and utilization of our minerals, 8550 or the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, which protects
petroleum, and other mineral oils. This power cannot be taken the rights of the fisherfolk in the preferential use of municipal
lightly. waters, with the exception being limited only to research and
survey activities.80
In this case, the public respondents have failed to show that
the President had any participation in SC-46. Their argument The FIDEC, for its part, argues that to avail of the exceptions
that their acts are actually the acts of then President under Section 14 of the NIPAS Act, the gathering of
Macapagal-Arroyo, absent proof of her disapproval, must fail information must be in accordance with a DENR-approved
as the requirement that the President herself enter into these program, and the exploitation and utilization of energy
kinds of contracts is embodied not just in any ordinary statute, resources must be pursuant to a general law passed by
but in the Constitution itself. These service contracts involving Congress expressly for that purpose. Since there is neither a
the exploitation, development, and utilization of our natural DENR-approved program nor a general law passed by
resources are of paramount interest to the present and future Congress, the seismic surveys and oil drilling operations were
generations. Hence, safeguards were put in place to insure that all done illegally.81 The FIDEC likewise contends that SC-46
the guidelines set by law are meticulously observed and infringes on its right to the preferential use of the communal
fishing waters as it is denied free access within the prohibited
11

likewise to eradicate the corruption that may easily penetrate

departments and agencies by ensuring that the President has zone, in violation not only of the Fisheries Code but also of
the 1987 Constitutional provisions on subsistence fisherfolk
Page

authorized or approved of these service contracts herself.

and social justice.82 Furthermore, the FIDEC believes that the
provisions in Presidential Decree No. 87, which allow offshore Estrada's time, he also constituted the Tañon Strait
drilling even in municipal waters, should be deemed to have Commission via Executive Order No. 76 to ensure the
been rendered inoperative by the provisions of Republic Act optimum and sustained use of the resources in that area
No. 8550 and Republic Act No. 7160, which reiterate the without threatening its marine life. He followed this with
social justice provisions of the Constitution.83 Executive Order No. 177,87 wherein he included the mayor of
Negros Occidental Municipality/City as a member of the
The public respondents invoke the rules on statutory Tañon Strait Commission, to represent the LGUs concerned.
construction and argue that Section 14 of the NIPAS Act is a This Commission, however, was subsequently abolished in
more particular provision and cannot be deemed to have been 2002 by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, via
repealed by the more general prohibition in Section 27 of Executive Order No. 72.88
Republic Act No. 9147. They aver that Section 14, under
which SC-46 falls, should instead be regarded as an exemption True to the constitutional policy that the "State shall protect
to Section 27.84 and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
Addressing the claim of petitioners in G.R. No. 180771 that nature,"89 Congress enacted the NIPAS Act to secure the
there was a violation of Section 27 of Republic Act No. 9147, perpetual existence of all native plants and animals through
the public respondents assert that what the section prohibits is the establishment of a comprehensive system of integrated
the exploration of minerals, which as defined in the Philippine protected areas. These areas possess common ecological
Mining Act of 1995, exclude energy materials such as coal, values that were incorporated into a holistic plan
petroleum, natural gas, radioactive materials and geothermal representative of our natural heritage. The system
energy. Thus, since SC-46 involves oil and gas exploration, encompasses outstandingly remarkable areas and biologically
Section 27 does not apply.85 important public lands that are habitats of rare and endangered
species of plants and animals, biogeographic zones and related
The public respondents defend the validity of SC-46 and insist ecosystems, whether terrestrial, wetland, or marine.90 It
that it does not grant exclusive fishing rights to JAPEX; hence, classifies and administers all the designated protected areas to
it does not violate the rule on preferential use of municipal maintain essential ecological processes and life-support
waters. Moreover, they allege that JAPEX has not banned systems, to preserve genetic diversity, to ensure sustainable
fishing in the project area, contrary to the FIDEC's claim. The use of resources found therein, and to maintain their natural
public respondents also contest the attribution of the declining conditions to the greatest extent possible.91 The following
fish catch to the seismic surveys and aver that the allegation is categories of protected areas were established under the
unfounded. They claim that according to the Bureau of NIPAS Act:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources' fish catch data, the reduced
fish catch started in the 1970s due to destructive fishing a. Strict nature reserve;
practices.86
b. Natural park;
Ruling of the Court
On the legality of Service Contract No. 46 vis-a-vis Other c. Natural monument;
Laws
d. Wildlife sanctuary;
Although we have already established above that SC-46 is null
and void for being violative of the 1987 Constitution, it is our e. Protected landscapes and seascapes;
duty to still rule on the legality of SC-46 vis-a-vis other
pertinent laws, to serve as a guide for the Government when f. Resource reserve;
executing service contracts involving not only the Tañon
Strait, but also other similar areas. While the petitioners allege g. Natural biotic areas; and
that SC-46 is in violation of several laws, including
international ones, their arguments focus primarily on the
h. Other categories established by law,
protected status of the Tañon Strait, thus this Court will
conventions or international agreements
concentrate on those laws that pertain particularly to the
which the Philippine Government is a
Tañon Strait as a protected seascape.
signatory.92
The Tañon Strait is a narrow passage of water bounded by the
islands of Cebu in the East and Negros in the West. It harbors Under Section 4 of the NIPAS Act, a protected area refers to
a rich biodiversity of marine life, including endangered portions of land and water, set aside due to their unique
species of dolphins and whales. For this reason, former physical and biological significance, managed to enhance
President Fidel V. Ramos declared the Tañon Strait as a biological diversity and protected against human exploitation.
protected seascape in 1998 by virtue of Proclamation No. 1234
12

- Declaring the Tañon Strait situated in the Provinces of The Tañon Strait, pursuant to Proclamation No. 1234, was set
Cebu, Negros Occidental and Negros Oriental as a Protected aside and declared a protected area under the category of
Page

Area pursuant to the NIP AS Act and shall be known as Tañon Protected Seascape. The NIPAS Act defines a Protected
Strait Protected Seascape. During former President Joseph E. Seascape to be an area of national significance characterized
by the harmonious interaction of man and land while 1) The Tañon Strait is not a strict nature reserve or natural
providing opportunities for public enjoyment through park;
recreation and tourism within the normal lifestyle and
economic activity of this areas;93 thus a management plan for 2) Exploration is only for the purpose of gathering information
each area must be designed to protect and enhance the on possible energy resources; and
permanent preservation of its natural conditions.94 Consistent
with this endeavor is the requirement that an Environmental 3) Measures are undertaken to ensure that the exploration is
Impact Assessment (EIA) be made prior to undertaking any being done with the least damage to surrounding areas. 104
activity outside the scope of the management plan. Unless an
ECC under the EIA system is obtained, no activity We do not agree with the arguments raised by the public
inconsistent with the goals of the NIPAS Act shall be respondents.
implemented.95
Sections 12 and 14 of the NIPAS Act
The Environmental Impact Statement System (EISS) was read:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
established in 1978 under Presidential Decree No. 1586. It SECTION 12. Environmental Impact Assessment. - Proposals
prohibits any person, partnership or corporation from for activities which are outside the scope of the management
undertaking or operating any declared environmentally critical plan for protected areas shall be subject to an environmental
project or areas without first securing an ECC issued by the impact assessment as required by law before they are adopted,
President or his duly authorized representative. 96 Pursuant to and the results thereof shall be taken into consideration in the
the EISS, which called for the proper management of decision-making process.
environmentally critical areas,97 Proclamation No. 214698 was
enacted, identifying the areas and types of projects to be No actual implementation of such activities shall be allowed
considered as environmentally critical and within the scope of without the required Environmental Compliance Certificate
the EISS, while DENR Administrative Order No. 2003-30 (ECC) under the Philippine Environmental Impact Assessment
provided for its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). (EIA) system. In instances where such activities are allowed to
be undertaken, the proponent shall plan and carry them out in
DENR Administrative Order No. 2003-30 defines such manner as will minimize any adverse effects and take
an environmentally critical area as "an area delineated as preventive and remedial action when appropriate. The
environmentally sensitive such that significant environmental proponent shall be liable for any damage due to lack of
impacts are expected if certain types of proposed projects or caution or indiscretion.
programs are located, developed, or implemented in it"; 99 thus,
before a project, which is "any activity, regardless of scale or SECTION 14. Survey for Energy Resources. - Consistent
magnitude, which may have significant impact on the with the policies declared in Section 2 hereof, protected areas,
environment,"100 is undertaken in it, such project must undergo except strict nature reserves and natural parks, may be
an EIA to evaluate and predict the likely impacts of all its subjected to exploration only for the purpose of gathering
stages on the environment.101 An EIA is described in detail as information on energy resources and only if such activity is
follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary carried out with the least damage to surrounding areas.
h. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - process that Surveys shall be conducted only in accordance with a program
involves evaluating and predicting the likely impacts of a approved by the DENR, and the result of such surveys shall be
project (including cumulative impacts) on the environment made available to the public and submitted to the President for
during construction, commissioning, operation and recommendation to Congress. Any exploitation and utilization
abandonment. It also includes designing appropriate of energy resources found within NIPAS areas shall be
preventive, mitigating and enhancement measures allowed only through a law passed by Congress.
addressing these consequences to protect the environment It is true that the restrictions found under the NIPAS Act are
and the community's welfare. The process is undertaken by, not without exceptions. However, while an exploration done
among others, the project proponent and/or EIA for the purpose of surveying for energy resources is
Consultant, EMB, a Review Committee, affected allowed under Section 14 of the NIPAS Act, this
communities and other stakeholders.102 does not mean that it is exempt from the requirement to
Under Proclamation No. 2146, the Tañon Strait is an undergo an EIA under Section 12. In Sotto v. Sotto,105 this
environmentally critical area, having been declared as a Court explained why a statute should be construed as a
protected area in 1998; therefore, any activity outside the whole:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
scope of its management plan may only be implemented A statute is passed as a whole and not in parts or sections and
pursuant to an ECC secured after undergoing an EIA to is animated by one general purpose and intent. Consequently
determine the effects of such activity on its ecological each part or section should be construed in connection with
system. every other part or section and so as to produce a harmonious
whole. It is not proper to confine the attention to the one
The public respondents argue that they had complied with the section to be construed. It is always an unsafe way of
13

procedures in obtaining an ECC103 and that SC-46 falls under construing a statute or contract to divide it by a process of
the exceptions in Section 14 of the NIPAS Act, due to the etymological dissection, into separate words, and then apply to
Page

following reasons: each, thus separated from its context, some particular
definition given by lexicographers, and then reconstruct the may, on his own initiative or upon recommendation of the
instrument upon the basis of these definitions. An instrument National Environmental Protection Council, by proclamation
must always be construed as a whole, and the particular declare certain projects, undertakings or areas in the country as
meaning to be attached to any word or phrase is usually to be environmentally critical. No person, partnership or corporation
ascertained from the context, the nature of the subject treated shall undertake or operate any such declared environmentally
of and the purpose or intention of the parties who executed the critical project or area without first securing an Environmental
contract, or of the body which enacted or framed the statute or Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly
constitution, x x x. authorized representative. For the proper management of said
critical project or area, the President may by his proclamation
Surveying for energy resources under Section 14 is not an
reorganize such government offices, agencies, institutions,
exemption from complying with the EIA requirement in
corporations or instrumentalities including the re-alignment of
Section 12; instead, Section 14 provides
government personnel, and their specific functions and
for additional requisites before any exploration for energy
responsibilities.
resources may be done in protected areas.
For the same purpose as above, the Ministry of Human
The rationale for such additional requirements are
Settlements shall: (a) prepare the proper land or water use
incorporated in Section 2 of the NIPAS Act, to
pattern for said critical project(s) or area(s); (b) establish
wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
ambient environmental quality standards; (c) develop a
SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy - Cognizant of the
program of environmental enhancement or protective
profound impact of man's activities on all components of the
natural environment particularly the effect of increasing measures against calamitous factors such as earthquakes,
floods, water erosion and others, and (d) perform such other
population, resource exploitation and industrial advancement
functions as may be directed by the President from time to
amd recognizing the critical importance of protecting and
time.
maintaining the natural biological and physical diversities of
the environment notably on areas with biologically unique The respondents' subsequent compliance with the EISS for the
features to sustain human life and development, as well as second sub-phase of SC-46 cannot and will not cure this
plant and animal life, it is hereby declared the policy of the violation. The following penalties are provided for under
State to secure for the Filipino people of present and future Presidential Decree No. 1586 and the NIPAS Act.
generations the perpetual existence of all native plants and
animals through the establishment of a comprehensive system Section 9 of Presidential Decree No. 1586 provides for the
of integrated protected areas within the classification of penalty involving violations of the ECC
national park as provided for in the Constitution. requirement:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Section 9. Penalty for Violation. - Any person, corporation or
It is hereby recognized that these areas, although distinct in partnership found violating Section 4 of this Decree, or the
features, possess common ecological values that may be terms and conditions in the issuance of the Environmental
incorporated into a holistic plan representative of our natural Compliance Certificate, or of the standards, rules and
heritage; that effective administration of this area is possible regulations issued by the National Environmental Protection
only through cooperation among national government, local Council pursuant to this Decree shall be punished by
government and concerned private organizations; that the use the suspension or cancellation of his/its certificates and/or a
and enjoyment of these protected areas must be consistent fine in an amount not to exceed Fifty Thousand Pesos
with the principles of biological diversity and sustainable (P50,000.00) for every violation thereof, at the discretion of
development. the National Environmental Protection Council. (Emphasis
supplied.)
To this end, there is hereby established a National Integrated Violations of the NIPAS Act entails the following fines and/or
Protected Areas System (NIPAS), which shall encompass imprisonment under Section 21:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
outstandingly remarkable areas and biologically important SECTION 21. Penalties. - Whoever violates this Act or any
public lands that are habitats of rare and endangered species of rules and regulations issued by the Department pursuant to this
plants and animals, biogeographic zones and related Act or whoever is found guilty by a competent court of justice
ecosystems, whether terrestrial, wetland or marine, all of of any of the offenses in the preceding section shall be fined
which shall be designated as "protected areas." in the amount of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000)
The public respondents themselves admitted that JAPEX only nor more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000),
started to secure an ECC prior to the second sub-phase of SC- exclusive of the value of the thing damaged or
46, which required the drilling of an oil exploration well. This imprisonment for not less than one (1) year but not more
means that when the seismic surveys were done in the Tañon than six (6) years, or both, as determined by the
Strait, no such environmental impact evaluation was done. court: Provided, that, if the area requires rehabilitation or
Unless seismic surveys are part of the management plan of the restoration as determined by the court, the offender shall
Tañon Strait, such surveys were dona in violation of Section be required to restore or compensate for the restoration to
14

12 of the NIPAS Act and Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. the damages: Provided, further, that court shall order the
1586, which provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary eviction of the offender from the land and the forfeiture in
Page

Section 4. Presidential Proclamation of Environmentally favor of the Government of all minerals, timber or any
Critical Areas and Projects. - The President of the Philippines species collected or removed including all equipment,
devices and firearms used in connection therewith, and Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 essentially
any construction or improvement made thereon by the seeking the reversal of the April 24, 2002 Decision 2 of the
offender. If the offender is an association or corporation, the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 46222, entitled
president or manager shall be directly responsible for the act "Republic of the Philippines v. Agnes, et al.," which affirmed
of his employees and laborers: Provided, finally, that the the February 23, 1994 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court
DENR may impose administrative fines and penalties (RTC) of Palawan, Branch 49, Fourth Judicial Region, Puerto
consistent with this Act. (Emphases supplied.) Princesa City in Civil Case No. 2262, entitled "Republic of the
Philippines v. Aurellano Agnes, et al."
Moreover, SC-46 was not executed for the mere purpose of
gathering information on the possible energy resources in the
Tañon Strait as it also provides for the parties' rights and The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:
obligations relating to extraction and petroleum production
should oil in commercial quantities be found to exist in the Calauit Island (Calauit) is a 3,600-hectare island that forms
area. While Presidential Decree No. 87 may serve as the part of the Calamianes Island group in the Province of
general law upon which a service contract for petroleum Palawan.
exploration and extraction may be authorized, the
exploitation and utilization of this energy resource in the The petitioners claim to be among the more than 250 families
present case may be allowed only through a law passed by ("settlers") who lived in Calauit4 as successors of the early
Congress, since the Tañon Strait is a NIPAS area. 106Since settlers therein. They are members of the "Balik Calauit
there is no such law specifically allowing oil exploration Movement," which was organized for the purpose of
and/or extraction in the Tañon Strait, no energy resource reclaiming the lands they used to occupy. The settlers lay
exploitation and utilization may be done in said protected claim on the lands of Calauit either (1) through a predecessor,
seascape. who had become a titled owner by virtue of Act No. 926; 5 or
(2) by means of an imperfect title, which they, by themselves
In view of the foregoing premises and conclusions, it is no or their ancestors, had acquired by way of "unbroken,
longer necessary to discuss the other issues raised in these continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
consolidated petitions.cralawred cultivation"6 of the lands therein until their relocation in 1977.

WHEREFORE, the Petitions in G.R. Nos. 180771 and In 1973, the Bureau of Lands started to survey Calauit. After
181527 are GRANTED, Service Contract No. 46 is hereby some time, the surveyors met some resistance to the continued
declared NULL AND VOID for violating the 1987 survey, but the settlers were told that it was being done for
Constitution, Republic Act No. 7586, and Presidential Decree purposes of titling the latter’s landholdings, as well as to
No. 1586. determine how much land may be apportioned for people
coming from Busuanga who were to be relocated in the area in
SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary view of the establishment of the Yulo King Ranch. In 1975,
however, the settlers were told that the supposed titling of
their landholdings was not going to push through as the island
G.R. No. 156022 was going to be set up as a zoo for rare and exotic animals
from other countries.7 Further, they were told that instead, they
AURELLANO AGNES, EDUARDO AGNES, ESPIRITU would be resettled in Halsey and Burabod in Culion, where the
AGNES, ESTELLA AGNES, PANTALEON AGNES, lands were claimed to be more fertile and where full
FILOTEO APUEN, IMELDA APUEN, MOISES APUEN, government services and facilities such as irrigation,
ROGELIO APUEN, GONZALO AUSTRIA, JAVIER electricity, waterworks, public markets, roads, housing,
AUSTRIA, BONIFACIO EGUIA, LYDIA EGUIA, school, and health care, would be provided by the
MANUEL GABARDA, SR., MELECIO GARCIA, government.8
CRISTOBAL LOQUIB, MARIA LOQUIB, MATERNO
LOQUIB, GEORGE MACANAS, MODESTO The petitioners alleged that, along with the other settlers, they
MANLEBTEN, JUANITO AUSTRIA, CONCHITA could not refuse the offer because they were harassed and
BERNAL, AURELIO BERNAL, PABLITO BOGANTE, intimidated by members of the Philippine Constabulary (PC).
FELICIANO CANTON, ALFREDO CANETE, CECILIA In their petition and answers to written interrogatories, they
CANETE, CHERRY DE MESA, ROBERTO NOVERO, mentioned instances of violence and harassment by PC
PERLITO PABIA, RODRIGO SABROSO, JUAN soldiers.9 They were also told that they had no choice but to
T,ALORDA, and RAFAELA TRADIO, Petitioners, leave Calauit, as the island was government property and that,
vs. as illegal settlers, they could be sued.10
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
The terms of the proposed relocation was later embodied in
RESOLUTION individual Resettlement Agreements11 wherein the government,
15

through the Secretary of Natural Resources, among other

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: things, undertook to provide the signatory settler the
Page

following: (1) an agricultural lot in exchange for the area he

would be vacating; and (2) payment for the improvements on (SGD.) FERDINAND E. MARCOS
the properties to be vacated, as ascertained in individualized President of the Philippines
appraisal sheets.12 In exchange, the signatory settler agreed to
(1) be resettled to any selected resettlement area in Busuanga; By the President:
(2) relinquish "totally his rights and claim (sic) over the land
thereon in favor of the Government;" and (3) vacate the (SGD.) JUAN C. TUVERA
premises upon receipt of fifty percent (50%) of the total Presidential Assistant
amount of the appraised value of the improvements, with the
other half to be paid upon proof of actual evacuation from the
property.13 Thereafter, the Department of Natural Resources14 (DNR)
established the Calauit Special Project (CSP) to manage and
operate the Calauit Sanctuary.
On August 31, 1976, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos
(Pres. Marcos) signed Presidential Proclamation No. 1578,
which declared the Island of Calauit as a Game Preserve and On March 11, 1977, President Marcos issued Proclamation
Wildlife Sanctuary, viz.: No. 1626, declaring certain portions of the Culion Leper
Colony Reservation excluded from the Reservation and
opening them to disposition under the provisions of the Public
PROCLAMATION NO. 1578 Land Act. These portions, known as Halsey and Burabod,
became the resettlement areas for the settlers of Calauit.
DECLARING AS A GAME PRESERVE AND WILDLIFE
SANCTUARY A CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND OF THE In 1981, the Presidential Committee for the Conservation of
PUBLIC DOMAIN EMBRACED AND SITUATED IN THE the Tamaraw (PCCT) absorbed the CSP; and in 1985, it
ISLAND OF CALAUIT, MUNICIPALITY OF NEW entered into a contract with the Conservation and Resource
BUSUANGA, ISLAND OF BUSUANGA, PROVINCE OF Management Foundation, Inc. (CRMF) to carry out the
PALAWAN. functions of the CSP.

Upon recommendation of the Secretary of Natural Resources According to petitioners, life in the resettlement areas was
and pursuant to the authority vested in me by law, I, unbearable. They claimed that the lands in Halsey and
FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, do Burabod were unsuitable for habitation and agriculture; and
hereby withdraw from sale, settlement, exploration or that the government failed to comply with the promised
exploitation and set aside and declare, subject to private rights, services and facilities.15
if any there be, as a Game Preserve and Wildlife sanctuary a
certain parcel of land of the public domain embraced and
situated in the island of Calauit, Municipality of New After the EDSA People Power and the ouster of Pres. Marcos,
Busuanga, island of Busuanga, province of Palawan, which the settlers formed the "Balik Calauit Movement," and aired
tract of land is more particularly described as follows: their collective grievances to the new administration of then
President Corazon C. Aquino (Pres. Aquino).16
"A parcel of land (Calauit Island) bounded on the North by
Mindoro Strait; on the East by Mindoro Strait; on the South by Some of the settlers tried to return to the Island but were
the Municipality of New Busuanga, Palawan and Illultuk Bay; driven away by the CRMF; thus, they went to the Philippine
and on the West by the South China Sea; situated in the Commission on Human Rights (PCHR) to file a complaint
Municipality of New Busuanga, Calamianes Group, Province against the government and CRMF. A fact-finding
of Palawan, Island of Busuanga; containing an area of THREE commission was established by the PCHR and dialogues were
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED (3,400) HECTARES, more held among the parties. On February 17 and 23, 1987, the fact-
or less." finding commission submitted two
memoranda17 recommending (1) the repeal of Proclamation
No. 1578 for being violative of the settlers’ Bill of Rights; and
NOTE: These data are approximate and subject to future (2) the immediate return of the settlers to Calauit.
survey.
In June 1987, the petitioners, with the other settlers, once
The hunting, wounding, taking or killing within said territory again tried to return to Calauit, with success this time around.
of any wild animals or birds and/or the destruction of any
vegetation or any act causing disturbance to the habitat of the
wildlife herein protected are hereby prohibited. Meantime, the PCHR referred the aforementioned complaint
to then DNR Secretary Fulgencio Factoran, who, on July 14,
1987 issued an Order18 directing the settlers who returned to
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and caused Calauit to "immediately vacate the sanctuary and return to
the seal of the Republic of the Philippines to be affixed. their resettlement areas of Halsey [and] Burabod."
16

Done in the City of Manila, this 31st day of August in the year In response to the above Order, the concerned settlers filed a
Page

of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-six. Petition for Certiorari with this Court, docketed as G.R. No.
80034, entitled "Reynaldo Rufino, et al. v. Hon. Secretary docketed as Civil Case No. 2262, entitled "Republic of the
Fulgencio Factoran, et al." In a Resolution19 dated February Philippines v. Aurellano Agnes, et al."
16, 1988, this Court dismissed the petition for being factual in
nature, to wit: In said Complaint, herein respondent alleged that the
petitioners’ repossession and reoccupation of portions of
G.R. No. 80034 (Reynaldo Rufino, et al. vs. Hon. Secretary Calauit are patently unlawful and grossly reproachable as they
Fulgencio Factoran, et al.). It appearing from the allegations had already waived and relinquished whatever rights they had
and arguments of the parties in their respective pleadings that on the island when they signed and executed their respective
the issues presented to the Court for determination are mainly Resettlement Agreements. The respondent claimed that by
factual in nature, among them the manner of the petitioners’ returning to Calauit, the petitioners breached their contracts,
transfer from Calawit to Halsey and Burabod, the conditions the Resettlement Agreements, which they voluntarily and
obtaining in the places to which they have been relocated, the freely executed. Moreover, by virtue of Proclamation No.
terms and conditions of their resettlement, including the 1578, which closed Calauit to exploitation and settlement, the
benefits, if any, extended to them by the government, the respondent contended that the petitioners are staying on the
number of persons involved in the Back-to-Calawit island as "squatters" on public land. The respondent also
Movement, and whether or not there have really been complained of the great damage and disturbance the
violations of human rights against the petitioners, the Court, petitioners were doing to the natural resources and the
not being a trier of facts, Resolved to DISMISS the petition, protected animals in Calauit.26
without prejudice to the filing by the petitioners of the
appropriate action before the regional trial court for trial and In their "Answer with Counterclaims,"27 herein petitioners
determination of the said factual issues.20 alleged that the Resettlement Agreements were executed with
deceit, intimidation, misrepresentation, and fraud; hence they
On March 10, 1988, the petitioners filed a petition with the are illegal and void. They also contested their admissibility on
RTC, Branch 134, Makati, Metro Manila, docketed as Civil the ground that they are private documents, which have not
Case No. 88-298, entitled "Reynaldo Rufino, et al. v. Hon. been authenticated. They also claim that it was actually the
Fulgencio Factoran, et al.," for the issuance of a preliminary respondent who breached its contract by providing poor
injunction against the Department of Environment and Natural resettlement areas, which resulted in their subhuman and
Resources (DENR), to enjoin the latter from implementing marginal existence. The petitioners denied causing damage to
Secretary Factoran’s July 14, 1987 Order, and for the the island and the animals in Calauit, as they only occupied the
declaration of nullity of Proclamation No. 1578 for being coastal areas, away from the animals’ roaming grounds and
unconstitutional.21 habitat. The petitioners then prayed for the nullification of the
Resettlement Agreements for having been procured through
In an Order dated April 6, 1988, the RTC of Makati, denied violence, intimidation, deceit, misrepresentation, and fraud. In
the motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, the alternative, they called for the rescission of the contracts
and upheld the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 1578.22 for respondent’s material breach of its obligations. Lastly, they
asked for Twenty-Five Thousand (P25,000.00) Pesos each as
On April 17, 1989, the RTC of Makati issued another temperate, exemplary, and moral damages.
Order23 dismissing the case without prejudice, to wit:
Ruling of the RTC
On motion of counsel for defendants and there being no
objection on the part of counsel for the plaintiffs, the instant On February 23, 1994, the RTC of Puerto Princesa City
case is hereby ordered dismissed without prejudice. rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

The foregoing Order was prompted by petitioners’ WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders the defendants (with
manifestation that they had a pending appeal before the Office the exception of Alfredo Aunang, Juana Apuen, Eufricinia
of the President relative to the July 14, 1987 Order of DENR Bello, Bartolome Darol, Eduardo de Mesa, Aurora Eco,
Secretary Factoran directing the petitioners and the other Eleuterio Fresnillo, Jovita Gabarda, Fausto Lledo, Pampilo
settlers to leave Calauit and return to their resettlement areas Sabroso, Ismael, Rafaela and Regalado Tradio)28 and anyone
in Halsey and Burabod.24 The Office of the President claiming under them to vacate the respective areas where they
ultimately denied said appeal. have resettled at Calauit Island, Busuanga, Palawan.

Some of the settlers failed to comply with Secretary Plaintiff-Republic through the Secretary of the Department of
Factoran’s July 14, 1987 Order to vacate Calauit; thus, the Natural Resources, is ordered to procure another suitable
Republic of the Philippines (herein respondent), represented Relocation Sites for defendants within six months from receipt
by the DENR Secretary, filed a Complaint for Specific of this Decision.29
Performance and Recovery of Possession with Prayer for
17

Preliminary Injunction against herein petitioners before the The RTC held that the Resettlement Agreements, being
RTC, Branch 49, Puerto Princesa City.25 The complaint was duplicates of the originals and records of the Republic of the
Page

Philippines, are public documents notwithstanding their lack

of notarization. As such, they are admissible in evidence even Corollarily, all lands not otherwise appearing to be within
if the parties’ signatures were not authenticated. The RTC also private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Ergo, a
held that the vices of consent allegedly attached to the positive act of the government is needed to declassify a forest
Resettlement Agreements would have served to render the land into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other
agreements merely voidable and not void. However, the four- purposes. x x x. Therefore, to acquire ownership of public
year period within which the petitioners could bring an action land, the same must first be released from its original
for annulment had long prescribed. On the issue of rescission, classification and reclassified as alienable or disposable land.
the RTC held that even assuming that the petitioners had In the absence of such classification, the land remains
grounds for rescission, they "could not unilaterally rescind the unclassified public land until released therefrom and rendered
agreements, since the right to rescind must be invoked open to disposition. Thus, the burden of proof in overcoming
judicially."30 the presumption of state ownership of land lies upon the
claimant. x x x.
The RTC, in deciding against the petitioners’ return to Calauit,
proclaimed: xxxx

National Interest in the preservation of Calauit as Game x x x [T]he law itself stated that only alienable and disposable
Preserve and Sanctuary is the overriding factor which argues lands, particularly agricultural lands, can be acquired through
against the right of [petitioners] to return to Calauit. Assuming possession and occupation for at least 30 years. Since the
that the Resettlement Areas provided by [Respondent]- subject property is still unclassified when [the petitioners] and
Republic did not measure up to the expectations of their ancestors occupied the same, whatever possession they or
[petitioners], the recourse was not to renege on their their predecessors may have had and however long, cannot
Agreements by returning to Calauit and contributing to the ripen into private ownership. Moreover, the fact that the
disturbance or destruction of the Preserve, but to demand that disputed property may have been declared for taxation
[Respondent] deliver the fair value of the properties they purposes in the names of [petitioners] or their predecessors-in-
vacated. interest does not necessarily prove ownership. This is due to
the fact that tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive
[Respondent]-Republic is not entirely free from blame for evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not
what appears to have been an unwise choice of Relocation supported by evidence or other persuasive proof to
Sites and should be given an opportunity to rectify the substantiate their claim. They are merely indicia of a claim of
mistake.31 ownership.

The petitioners sought the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the Considering that the [petitioners] failed to present convincing
RTC’s decision in their Appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. evidence and persuasive proof to substantiate their claim, the
46222, entitled "Republic of the Philippines v. Aurellano presumption of State ownership stands. It is also well to note
Agnes, et al." that the bases of [respondent]’s superior right of possession
and ownership was sufficiently supported both by law and
Ruling of the Court of Appeals jurisprudence.33 (Citations omitted.)

In a Decision promulgated on April 24, 2002, the Court of The petitioners moved for the reconsideration 34 of the
Appeals affirmed the assailed ruling of the RTC, viz.: aforequoted Decision, which was subsequently denied in a
Resolution35 dated November 18, 2002.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision
dated February 23, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court of Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari premised on the
Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, Branch 49, Fourth Judicial following assignments of error:
Regional, Palawan docketed as Civil Case No. 2262, is
hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.32 Issues

The Court of Appeals concurred in the findings and I. THE COURT A QUO’S RULING REJECTING
conclusions of the RTC. In addition, it disputed the PETITIONERS’ CLAIMS OF OWNERSHIP OF THE
petitioners’ claim of ownership on the lands of Calauit; and LANDHOLDINGS IN DISPUTE, ABSENT "POSITIVE"
held that absent any proof to the contrary, the presumption that PROOF OF ALIENABILITY THEREOF, IS CONTRARY
Calauit is of public domain and thus belongs to the State NOT ONLY TO THE APPLICABLE LAW AND THE
stands. The Court of Appeals explained its pronouncement in CONTROLLING DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE
this wise: COURT BUT TO THE UNCONTROVERTED
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND THE
RESPONDENT’S ADMISSIONS AS WELL.
18

Pursuant to [Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution],

all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and that the
Page

State is the source of any asserted right to ownership in land II. IN REJECTING THE PETITIONERS’ CLAIMS OF
and charged with the conservation of such patrimony. OWNERSHIP OF THE LANDHOLDINGS IN DISPUTE,
THE COURT A QUO HAS GONE BEYOND THE ISSUES RELOCATED IN "A MORE SUITABLE"
RAISED BY RESPONDENT AND HAS IN EFFECT RESETTLEMENT SITE.41
COLLATERALLY ATTACKED AND NULLIFIED THE
CERTIFICATES OF TITLE IN THE NAMES OF IX. IN DENYING PETITIONERS’ CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
PETITIONERS’ ANCESTORS, CONTRARY TO THE COURT A QUO HAS OVERLOOKED AND
ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE.36 IGNORED THE UNCONTRADICTED FACTS OF THE
PRESENT CASE.42
III. THE COURT A QUO’S IMPOSITION OF THE
REQUIREMENT OF THE PRESENTATION OF AN Initially, this petition was denied in a Resolution43 dated
EXECUTIVE DECLARATION OF ALIENABILITY AS A February 3, 2003 for noncompliance with the Rules of Court,
CONDITION TO THE RECOGNITION OF PETITIONERS’ to wit:
ALREADY PERFECTED CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP IS NOT
IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition
OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.37 for review on certiorari of the decision dated April 24, 2002 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 46222 for failure to
IV. THE COURT A QUO’S RULING WITHHOLDING comply with requirement no. three (3), as the copy of the
RECOGNITION OF PETITIONERS’ PERFECTED CLAIMS assailed decision submitted is not duly certified as a true copy
TO THEIR CALAUIT LANDHOLDINGS RUNS COUNTER thereof. Also, it lacks a written explanation why the service or
TO THE CONTROLLING CASE OF Sta. Monica Industrial filing thereof was not done personally [Section 11, Rule 13,
and Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals INVOLVING Rules of Civil Procedure].
CLOSELY SIMILAR FACTS.38
In any event, even if the petition complied with the aforesaid
V. THE COURT A QUO VIOLATED THE BASIC RULES requirements, it would still be denied, as petitioners failed to
OF EVIDENCE AND CONTRAVENED SETTLED show that a reversible error had been committed by the
JURISPRUDENCE IN ADMITTING THE UNNOTARIZED appellate court.
RESETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS IN DISPUTE DESPITE
THE FACT THAT NOT A SINGLE WITNESS WAS The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration44 on March
PRESENTED TO DISCLOSE THEIR SOURCE AND TO 19, 2003, which this Court denied with finality on April 7,
ATTEST TO THEIR DUE EXECUTION AND DESPITE 2003.45
THE ABSENCE OF THE OFFICIAL APPROVALS
REQUIRED FOR THEIR COMPLETENESS AS OFFICIAL
DOCUMENTS.39 On June 2, 2003, the petitioners filed a Motion to Admit
Second Motion for Reconsideration with their Second Motion
for Reconsideration, wherein their "pro bono" counsels
VI. THE DECISION HAS IGNORED THE UNREBUTTED pleaded for leniency for "their shortcomings."46 From June 2 to
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE AND THE DOCUMENTED 20, 2003, the Court received several pleadings47 from various
ADMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT ESTABLISHING THE lawyers who were entering their appearances as
VIOLENCE, THREATS, FRAUD AND DECEIT collaborating pro bono counsels for the petitioners and who
EMPLOYED TO COMPEL PETITIONERS TO SUBMIT TO manifested that they were adopting the Second Motion for
THEIR RELOCATION, AND WARRANTING A Reconsideration filed on June 2, 2003.
DECLARATION OF THE NULLITY OF THE
RESETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, ASSUMING THEIR
EXECUTION BY PETITIONERS. On June 9, 2003, the Bishop of the Apostolic Vicariate of
Taytay, Palawan, also wrote then Chief Justice Hilario Davide
to plead for the admission of the Second Motion for
VII. THE COURT A QUO FURTHER IGNORED THE Reconsideration filed by the petitioners, whom he claimed
UNCONTROVERTED TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE AND were under his pastoral jurisdiction as he was their parish
THE DOCUMENTED ADMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT, priest in 1977-1978 and 1985-1989.48
ESTABLISHING THE NON-ARABLE CHARACTER OF
THE LANDS ALLOTTED TO PETITIONERS IN THE
RESETTLEMENT SITES AND THE SUBHUMAN In consideration of all the above pleadings, in a Resolution
CONDITIONS PREVAILING THEREIN WHICH dated June 25, 2003, this Court resolved to: (1) grant the
JUSTIFIED THE UNILATERAL RESCISSION OF THE petitioners’ motion to admit their Second Motion for
RESETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, Reconsideration; (2) set aside its February 3, 2003 Resolution;
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THEIR EXECUTION BY (3) reinstate the present petition; (4) require the respondent to
PETITIONERS.40 comment to the petition; and (5) note the other pleadings and
letters filed before it.49
VIII. THE TRIAL COURT AND [THE] COURT OF
19

APPEALS HA[VE] ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION IN In the meantime, on March 25, 2008, pursuant to Republic Act
GRANTING RESPONDENT THE RIGHT TO EVICT No. 8371, entitled "The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of
Page

PETITIONERS AGAIN AND TO HAVE THEM 1997," the Office of the President, through the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP),50 issued a
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) No. R04-BUS- Issued in Quezon City, Philippines on this 25th day
0308-06251 over 3,683.2324 hectares of land in the of March, 2008.52
Municipality of Busuanga, Province of Palawan, in favor of
the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community, which In view of the foregoing development on October 19, 2011,
comprised the communities of Barangays Calauit and Quezon, this Court issued a Resolution53 requiring the parties "to move
Calauit Island, and Municipality of Busuanga. The pertinent in the premises by informing the Court, within ten (10) days
portions of the CADT read as follows: from notice, of supervening events and/or subsequent
developments pertinent to the case which may be of help to
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: the Court in its immediate disposition x x x."

WHEREAS, pursuant to the mandates of the 1987 Philippine The petitioners, in a Manifestation,54 emphasized at the outset
Constitution to protect the rights of Indigenous Cultural that no event has transpired, which may have rendered the
Communities to their ancestral lands and domains, respect case herein moot and academic. The petitioners reiterated that
and preserve their culture and ensure their economic, social the relief they are after is their individual titles to the areas
and cultural well-being, and in accordance with the they are currently occupying in the Calauit Island.
provisions of R.A. 8371, ‘AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE AND
PROMOTE THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL And, in their Compliance55 the petitioners averred further that
COMMUNITIES/ INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, CREATING the issuance of the CADT "in favor of the Tagbanua
THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS Indigenous Cultural Community amounts to an affirmation
PEOPLES, ESTABLISHING IMPLEMENTING and recognition of the property rights of their ancestors from
MECHANISMS, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR whom [they] traced their present individual claims." Thus, the
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,’ the members of the petitioners claim that there is factual and legal bases for
indigenous Cultural Community/ies belonging to this Court to proceed and confirm their right of ownership
the TAGBANUA *** indigenous peoples, located over the subject properties in the Calauit Island.
at Municipality of Busuanga, Province of Palawan and
comprising the communities of Barangays Calauit and On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
Quezon, Calauit Island, Municipality of Busuanga, for the respondent Republic of the Philippines manifested that
Province of Palawan, having continuously occupied, per Memorandum dated March 5, 2012 by the Regional
possessed and utilized, since time immemorial, under a Executive Director, DENR-IVMIMAROPA, the following are
claim of ownership certain ancestral domain situated in the updates on the ground:
Municipality of Busuanga, Province of Palawan, Island of
Luzon, Philippines containing an area of Three Thousand
Six Hundred Eighty-Three and 2324/10000 3. Verification made by this office on the status of
(3,683.2324) hectares more or less, more particularly occupation of the Balik Calauit Movement (BCM) as
bounded and described on Page 2 hereof are hereby stated in Civil Case No. 2262 particularly the forty-
recognized of their rights thereto. seven (47) defendants (Aurellano Agnes, et al.) and
as confirmed by Bgy. Chairman Gabarda of Bgy.
Buluang Busuanga, Palawan wherein Calauit Island
NOW THEREFORE, said Indigenous Cultural Community is a Sitio of said Barangay, disclosed that forty (40)
of TAGBANUA*** Indigenous Peoples, whose members at are at present in the Calauit Island and seven (7) are
the time of this issuance appear hereunder as Annex A, is outside Calauit Island. The latter are Eufricina Bello,
hereby issued this Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title: Cherry Demesa, Eduardo Demesa, Jovita Gabarda,
Manuel Gabarda, Sr., Ismael Tradio and Rafaella
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD IN OWNERSHIP, the above Tradio who settled to adjacent and other Barangay[s]
described ancestral domain as their private but community of Busuanga, Palawan. Further, of the forty-seven
property, which belongs to all generations of the said (47) BCM members, nine (9) of them were already
Indigenous Cultural Community/Indigenous Peoples. dead (Juana Apuen, Javier Austria, Conchita
Barcebal, Aurora Eco, Lydia Equia, Fausto Lledo,
TO DEVELOP, CONTROL, MANAGE and UTILIZE Materno Loquib, George Macanas and Juan Talorda)
COLLECTIVELY the said ANCESTRAL DOMAIN with all and one (1) was put in jail (Bonifacio Equia) at the
the rights, privileges and responsibilities appurtenant thereto, Provincial Jail in Puerto Princesa City x x x.
subject to the condition that the said ancestral domain
shall NOT be SOLD, DISPOSED, nor DESTROYED. 4. During the resettlement of BCM, Barangay[s]
Halsey and Burabod in Culion, Palawan are the
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, and by authority of R.A. 8371, barangay[s] which were identified as resettlement
the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, hereby sites.1âwphi1 With this, some BCM members have
causes these letters to be made patent and the seal of the applied and awarded with titles. They are Eduardo
20

National Commission on Indigenous Peoples to be hereunto Agnes, Espiritu Agnes, Pantaleon Agnes, Filatea
affixed. Apuen, Juana Apuen, Moises Apuen, Alfredo
Page

Aunang, Javier Austria, Aurelio Bernal, Pablito

 Bogante, Alfredo Canete, Bartolome Darol, Melecia Ruling of this Court
Garcia, Modesto Manlebten, Roberto Novero, Perlita
Pabia, Pampilo Sabroso, Rodrigo Sabroso, Ismael With the issuance by the Office of the President of the CADT,
Tradio, Regalado Tradio, and Tirso Ustares, Jr. aside an ostensive successor to the Resettlement Agreements, to the
from other land areas they have acquired in Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community (ICC), the
Busuanga, Palawan x x x. resolution of the question on the propriety or impropriety of
the latter contract and their effects on the continued stay of the
5. Recent documents acquired from National settlers on Calauit appears to have been rendered moot and
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)- academic.
Provincial Office, Puerto Princesa City particularly
the photocopied technical descriptions of the awarded Under the CADT, the Tagbanua ICC is given authority "TO
Ancestral Domain showed that the Island of Calauit HAVE AND HOLD IN OWNERSHIP, the x x x described
as plotted by this Office was covered by Certificate ancestral domain as their private but community property,
of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) R04-BUS-0308- which belongs to all generations of the said Indigenous
062 bearing CADT-Lot No. 1-Ade-0403-005-Gni Cultural Community/Indigenous Peoples"; and "TO
covering 3,572.9731 hectares, more or less aside DEVELOP, CONTROL, MANAGE and UTILIZE
from other islets included known as Lot No. 2- COLLECTIVELY the said ANCESTRAL DOMAIN with all
Maltanobong Island-Ade-0403-005, Lot. No. 3- the rights, privileges and responsibilities appurtenant thereto,
Dimipac Island-Ade-0403-005-Gni, Lot No. 4-Ade- subject to the condition that the said ancestral domain
0403-005-Gni, and Lot No. 5-Ade-0403-005-Gni shall NOT be SOLD, DISPOSED, nor DESTROYED."
with corresponding areas which are adjacent to
Calauit Island x x x. To be precise, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8371 recognizes
that the rights to ancestral domains carry with it the rights of
6. At present, [a] certain Roy Dabuit is the Acting ownership and possession of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral
Chairman of the Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural domains, which shall include the following:
Community who is the recipient of the said CADT in
Calauit Island and other islets. Section 7. Rights to Ancestral Domains. - The rights of
ownership and possession of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral
7. Furthermore, the undersigned was able to take domains shall be recognized and protected. Such rights shall
pictures on the portions of Calauit Island which were include:
occupied by the BCM and Indigenous People
belonging to the Tagbanua Tribe. They have built a. Rights of Ownership.- The right to claim
houses made of light materials, school (elementary ownership over lands, bodies of water
and day care), small causeway and tribal hall. traditionally and actually occupied by
ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional hunting
8. Moreover, the Calauit Preserve and Wildlife and fishing grounds, and all improvements
Sanctuary still exist in the Island of Calauit and made by them at any time within the
placed under the management of the Provincial domains;
Government of Palawan thru an Executive Order.
The issuance of CADT over Calauit Island including b. Right to Develop Lands and Natural
the Calauit Preserve and Wildlife Sanctuary under Resources. – Subject to Section 56 hereof,
Presidential Proclamation 1578 is another current right to develop, control and use lands and
problem.56 territories traditionally occupied, owned, or
used; to manage and conserve natural
Thus, the OSG submitted that "the instant petition must be resources within the territories and uphold
decided on the merits considering that the area in dispute the responsibilities for future generations; to
remains to be a Game and Wildlife Preserve and petitioners benefit and share the profits from allocation
persist on their illegal occupation thereof."57 and utilization of the natural resources found
therein; the right to negotiate the terms and
Notwithstanding the matters raised by the petitioners in this conditions for the exploration of natural
case, a review of the Complaint, Answer with resources in the areas for the purpose of
Counterclaims, and the rest of the record of the instant petition ensuring ecological, environmental
readily reveals that the fundamental issue of the controversy protection and the conservation measures,
between the parties may be summed up into these: whether or pursuant to national and customary laws; the
not the Resettlement Agreements are valid; and, more right to an informed and intelligent
importantly, whether or not the petitioners may be compelled participation in the formulation and
21

to vacate Calauit by virtue of their obligations enumerated in implementation of any project, government
the Resettlement Agreements. or private, that will affect or impact upon the
Page

ancestral domains and to receive just and

fair compensation for any damages which management of their inland waters and air
they may sustain as a result of the project; space;
and the right to effective measures by the
government to prevent any interference g. Right to Claim Parts of Reservations. -
with, alienation and encroachment upon The right to claim parts of the ancestral
these rights; domains which have been reserved for
various purposes, except those reserved and
c. Right to Stay in the Territories - The intended for common and public welfare and
right to stay in the territory and not to be service; and
removed therefrom. No ICCs/IPs will be
relocated without their free and prior h. Right to Resolve Conflict. - Right to
informed consent, nor through any means resolve land conflicts in accordance with
other than eminent domain. Where customary laws of the area where the land is
relocation is considered necessary as an located, and only in default thereof shall the
exceptional measure, such relocation shall complaints be submitted to amicable
take place only with the free and prior settlement and to the Courts of Justice
informed consent of the ICCs/IPs whenever necessary. (Emphasis supplied.)
concerned and whenever possible, they
shall be guaranteed the right to return to More significantly, the aforequoted provision provides that the
their ancestral domains, as soon as the right to ancestral domain carries with it the right to "stay in the
grounds for relocation cease to exist. territory and not to be removed therefrom." And the CADT
When such return is not possible, as was issued notwithstanding the existence of Presidential
determined by agreement or through Proclamation No. 1578, which recognized the existence of
appropriate procedures, ICCs/IPs shall be private rights already extant at the time. Thus, although the
provided in all possible cases with lands of issuance of the CADT in favor of the Tagbanua ICC to
quality and legal status at least equal to develop, control, manage, and utilize Calauit does not affect
that of the land previously occupied by the propriety or impropriety of the execution of
them, suitable to provide for their present the Resettlement Agreements per se, the same, however,
needs and future development. Persons gainsays the avowed consequence of said contracts, that is, to
thus relocated shall likewise be fully remove and transfer the settlers from Calauit to the
compensated for any resulting loss or resettlement areas in Halsey and Burabod.
injury;
Verily, in Gancho-on v. Secretary of Labor and
d. Right in Case of Displacement. - In case Employment,58 this Court emphasized that:
displacement occurs as a result of natural
catastrophes, the State shall endeavor to
resettle the displaced ICCs/IPs in suitable It is a rule of universal application, almost, that courts of
areas where they can have temporary life justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not
support systems: Provided, That the consider questions in which no actual interests are involved;
displaced ICCs/IPs shall have the right to they decline jurisdiction of moot cases. And where the issue
return to their abandoned lands until such has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable
time that the normalcy and safety of such controversy, so that a declaration thereon would be of no
lands shall be determined: Provided, further, practical use or value. There is no actual substantial relief to
That should their ancestral domain cease to which petitioners would be entitled and which would be
exist and normalcy and safety of the negated by the dismissal of the petition. (Citations omitted.)
previous settlements are not possible,
displaced ICCs/IPs shall enjoy security of From the above pronouncement, there is no justiciable
tenure over lands to which they have been controversy anymore in the instant petition in view of the
resettled: Provided, furthermore, That basic issuance of CADT. There is no longer any purpose in
services and livelihood shall be provided to determining whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming
them to ensure that their needs are the Decision of the RTC since any declaration thereon would
adequately addressed; be of no practical use or value.

e. Right to Regulate Entry of Migrants. - Clearly, any decision of this Court on the present petition,
Right to regulate the entry of migrant settlers whether it be an affirmance or a reversal of the assailed
and organizations into the domains; Decision of the Court of Appeals, would be equivalent in
effect to an affirmance or an invalidation of the challenged
22

f. Right to Safe and Clean Air and Water. - Decision of the RTC. But the Office of the President’s
issuance of a 2008 Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title in
Page

For this purpose, the ICCs/IPs shall have

access to integrated systems for the favor of the settlers, including the petitioners, negates the need
to resolve the issues raised in the Complaint and Answer with A.C. No. 5499. August 16, 2005
Counterclaims – whether or not the petitioners may be
compelled to vacate Calauit by virtue of their obligations WILSON PO CHAM, Complainant,
enumerated in the Resettlement Agreements. vs.
ATTY. EDILBERTO D. PIZARRO, Respondent.
The issuance by the respondent of CADT No. R04-BUS-0308-
062 over 3,683.2324 (the entire area subject of DECISION
the Resettlement Agreements) in favor of the settlers, including
the petitioners, provide their occupation and/or settlement on CARPIO MORALES, J.:
the subject land an apparent color of authority at the very least
by virtue of Republic Act No. 8371. Precisely, under the law,
a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title "refers to a title Before this Court is an administrative complaint for
formally recognizing the rights of possession and ownership of disbarment filed by Wilson Po Cham (complainant) against
ICCs/[Indigenous Peoples (IPs)] over their ancestral Atty. Edilberto D. Pizarro (respondent) for commission of
domains59 identified and delineated in accordance with [the] falsehood and misrepresentations in violation of a lawyer’s
law."60 Therefore, the settlers continued stay in Calauit has oath.
become a non-issue. As such, any discussion on the matter of
the propriety of the Resettlement Agreements and their effects Complainant gives the following account of the facts that
would be mere surplusage. spawned the filing of the present administrative complaint.

Although the moot and academic principle admits of certain Sometime in July 1995, Emelita Cañete (Cañete), Elenita
exceptions,61 none are applicable in this case. Alipio (Alipio), and now deceased Mario Navarro (Navarro)
who was then the Municipal Assessor of Morong, Bataan,
But emphasis must be made that the disposition of the instant offered for sale to him a parcel of land with an area of
petition does not at all touch on the propriety or impropriety of approximately forty (40) hectares, identified as Lot 1683 of
the issuance of the CADT.1awp++i1 Such a question is not Cad. Case No. 262, situated at Sitio Gatao, Nagbalayong,
for this Court to take on at this time as, in fact, it is not raised Morong, Bataan (the property).
herein.
He having expressed interest in the offer, Cañete and Navarro
Relative to the recent prayer of the petitioners that they be arranged a meeting between him and respondent at the latter’s
awarded individual titles of ownership over portions of Calauit residence in Balanga, Bataan1 where respondent categorically
as the issuance of CADT in favor of the Tagbanua ICC represented to him that the property being offered for sale was
amounts to an affirmation and recognition of the property alienable and disposable.2 Respondent in fact presented to him
rights of their ancestors from whom they trace their present 1) Real Property Tax Order of Payment3 dated July 10, 1995
individual claims,62 this Court points out that under Section 12 covering the property signed by Edna P. Pizarro as Municipal
of Republic Act No. 8371, individual members of cultural Treasurer and Navarro as Municipal Assessor; 2) a Deed of
communities, with respect to individually owned ancestral Absolute Sale4 dated July 25, 1995 purportedly executed by
lands, the option to secure title to the same must be done in the alleged previous actual occupant of the property, one Jose
accordance with the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. R. Monzon (Monzon), transferring all his rights, interest and
141, as amended, or the Land Registration Act 496. possession thereover in favor of Virgilio Banzon (Banzon),
Rolando B. Zabala (Zabala) and respondent for an agreed
consideration of ₱500,000.00; and 3) Special Power of
In light of the foregoing, the issues invoked by the parties no Attorney5 dated July 25, 1995 executed by Banzon and Zabala
longer need to be discussed. authorizing him (respondent) to:

WHEREFORE, the April 24, 2002 Decision of the Court of 1. x x x offer to sell [their] rights over a certain parcel of land,
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 46222 is SET ASIDE, and Civil which is more particularly described as follows:
Case No. 2262 is DISMISSED, for being moot and academic.
No costs.
AREA: 40 has. more or less
SO ORDERED.
situated at Pook Batangas, Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan
covered by Tax Declaration No. 6066 PIN #108-08-044-05-
126

2. x x x negotiate and enter into a contract for the

consumation (sic) of sale of the subject property; and to sign
23

the same.
Page
3. x x x receive proceeds thereof with obligation to distribute SOUTH : National Road-Bagac-Morong
the corresponding share of each co-owner;
WEST : Right of Nicasio Canta
x x x6 (Underscoring supplied)
EAST : Sapang Batang Panao
On July 25, 1995, he as buyer and respondent as seller
executed an Option to Buy,7 the pertinent portions of which including the trees and improvement situated thereon.
provide:
Full payment shall be paid within three (3) weeks from date
WHEREAS, the SELLER is the owner and Attorney-In-Fact hereof.10 (Underscoring supplied)
of his co-owners of rights with planted trees
(improvements) containing an area of FORTY THREE (43) On August 21, 1995, respondent executed a Deed of Absolute
hectares, situated in Pook Batangas, Nagbalayong, Morong, Sale11 over the property in his favor, the pertinent portions of
Bataan; (Portion of Lot 1683, Cad. 262, Morong Cadastre), which read as follows:
covered by Tax Declaration 6066.
For and in consideration of the sum of THREE MILLION
WHEREAS, the BUYER is interested to buy the same for a THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND FIVE
total price of THREE MILLION AND SEVEN HUNDRED HUNDRED THIRTY THREE (₱3,372,533.00), Philippine
THOUSAND PESOS (₱3,700,000.00) payable in two (2) Currency, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged from
gives (sic), as follows: the BUYER to the entire satisfaction of the SELLERS, the
said SELLERS do by these presents SELL, TRANSFER and
a) Earnest money of ₱10,000.00 upon signing of this contract CONVEY, in manner absolute and irrevocable, in favor of the
and the balance of full payment within three (3) weeks from said BUYER, his heirs and assigns, all their rights, interest and
date hereof which offer the SELLER accepts; participation over that certain real estate destined for, and in
actual use as fruit land, situated at Pook Batangas,
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan and more particularly
premises and the terms and conditions hereunder specified the described as follows:
parties have agreed on the following:
Location : Pook Batangas, Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan
1) That the Buyer shall give an option money and earnest (sic)
of ₱10,000.00 upon signing of this contract, which shall form Area : That portion of Lot 1683, Cad. 262, Morong Cadastre,
part of the contract price if and when the buyer comply (sic) containing an area of 392,155 square meters more or less.
with his obligation to pay in full within three (3) weeks from
date hereof, otherwise should the BUYER fails (sic) to comply Boundaries : North : Right of Catalino Agujo
with his obligation to pay in full on the scheduled period the
₱10,000.00 earnest money shall be forfeited in favor of the
SELLER and the Option to Buy is automatically cancelled. South : National Road, Bagac-Morong

2) That the SELLER upon full payment of the price shall West : Right of Nicasio Canta
execute a final Deed of Sale and shall surrender all documents,
plans and paper relative to the properties subject of sale; East : Sapang Batang Panao

3) That the SELLER shall warrants (sic) their rights and The SELLERS do hereby declare that the boundaries of the
claims over the above stated properties including the trees foregoing land are visible by means of monuments, creeks and
planted on it as against the rights of third party except that of trees; that the land including the permanent improvements
the government.8 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) existing thereon consist of fruit-bearing trees assessed for the
current year at TWO HUNDRED SIXTY TWO THOUSAND
In accordance with the terms of the Option to Buy, he paid FOUR HUNDRED ₱262,400.00 as per Tax Declaration No.
respondent the amount of ₱10,000.00 for which respondent 5010; and that the property is presently in the possession of
issued the corresponding Receipt9 reading: the SELLERS.

Received the sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (₱10,000.00) The SELLERS hereby agree with the BUYER that they are the
from MR. WILSON CHAM, representing earnest/option absolute owners of the rights over the said property; that they
money for Lot 1683 of Cad. Case No. 262 situated at have the perfect right to convey the same;  that they acquired
Boundaries: their rights over the said property by absolute deed of sale
24

from Jose R. Monzon who acquired his rights over the

property from Marianito Holgado; that Marianito Holgado
Page

NORTH : Right of Catalino Agujo acquired his right from Pedro de Leon who, in turn, acquired
his right from Julian Agujo who was the original owner who
cleared the land and who was in possession of the same used in the illegal selling of right [of] possession within the
immediately after the Second World War. Bataan Natural Park which is prohibited under our laws.

The SELLERS warrant their rights and claims over the xxx
aforedescribed real estate including the trees planted thereon
and they undertake to defend the same unto said Vendee, his In this regard, I would like to request for your assistance by
heirs and assigns against the claims of any third person way of informing us and in controlling this land rush and
whomsoever.12 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) massive selling and buying of rights of possession within
prohibited areas as stated above.21 (Emphasis and underscoring
Respondent thereafter furnished him with a copy of Tax supplied)
Declaration No. 501013 with Property Index No. 018-08-004-
05-126 issued in his (respondent’s) name and his alleged co- Upon his request, the PENR issued a Certification22 dated
owners, and Real Property Tax Receipt No. 02520114 dated March 14, 1996 stating that those named by respondent as
August 17, 1995 issued in his (respondent’s) name. prior owners of rights over the property from whom
respondent and his alleged co-owners acquired their alleged
He thus gave respondent two checks dated August 21, 1995 rights were not among those inventoried as occupants per the
representing the purchase price of the rights over the property, PENR’s 1978 to 1994 Forest Occupancy Census (IFO)
Asian Bank Corporation Check No. GA06321015 in the amount Survey.
of ₱168,627.00 payable to respondent, and Asian Bank
Manager’s Check No. 004639GA16 in the amount of Despite repeated demands, respondent refused to return the
₱3,193,906.00 payable to respondent, Banzon and Zabala. purchase price of the rights over the property.23

He subsequently took possession of the property and installed In his present complaint24 dated September 10, 2001,
a barbed wire fence at its front portion. Soon after, however, a complainant charges respondent to have violated his oath as a
forest guard approached him and informed him that the member of the Bar in committing manifest falsehood and
property could not be fenced as it was part of the Bataan evident misrepresentation by employing fraudulent means to
National Park.17 lure him into buying rights over the property which property
he represented to be disposable and alienable.25
Upon investigation, he discovered that the property is not an
alienable or disposable land susceptible of private ownership. In his Comment26 dated January 12, 2002, respondent denied
He thus secured a Certification18 from the Community having employed deceit or having pretended to co-own rights
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENR) in Bagac, over the property or having represented that it was alienable
Bataan of the Department of Environment and Natural and disposable. He claimed that complainant, being engaged
Resources (DENR) dated July 2, 1998, signed by CENR in speculation in the purchase of property, knew exactly the
Officer Laurino D. Macadangdang, reading: character and nature of the object of his purchase; 27 and that
despite complainant’s awareness that he was merely "buying
This pertains to your request for a certification as to the status rights to forest land," he just the same voluntarily entered into
of land claimed by spouses Perfecto and Purificacion, Jose the transaction because of the property’s proximity to the
Monson, et. al, Virgilio Banzon and Edilberto Pizarro, all Subic Bay Economic Zone.
located at Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan.
Respondent surmised that complainant bought the rights over
Please be informed that per verification conducted by the the property in the hope that lands belonging to the public
personnel of this Office, said lands fall within the Bataan domain in Morong "would be eventually declared alienable
Natural Park per L.C. Map/N.P. Map No. 34 as certified on and disposable to meet the rising demand for economic
December 1, 1945. Under the Public Land Law, lands within zones."28
this category are not subject for disposition.19 (Underscoring
supplied) By Resolution29 of February 6, 2002, this Court referred the
case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
He also obtained a Letter-directive20 dated August 31, 1995 investigation, report and recommendation or decision within
issued by Officer-in-Charge Ricardo R. Alarcon of the ninety (90) days from notice.
Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENR)
of Balanga, Bataan to the Municipal Assessor, the pertinent On May 6, 2002, complainant filed before the IBP his
portions of which read: Reply30 to respondent’s Comment, maintaining that the sale of
rights over the property was attended with deceit as
Please be informed that it comes to our attention that there respondent deliberately did not disclose that the property was
25

are some forest occupants that are securing land tax within the confines of the Bataan National Park.31 And he
declarations from your office in (sic)  the pretext that the denied being engaged in speculation, he claiming that with his
Page

area they occupied (sic) were (sic) within alienable and purchase of the property, he would venture into low-cost
disposable lands. Presently, this tax declaration is being housing for the employees of the nearby Subic Bay area.32
To complainant’s Reply, respondent filed his Rejoinder on their representations to complainant were simply not true but a
June 21, 2002.33 falsehood.

Complainant later filed his Affidavit34 and Position Paper35 on Respondent being extensively conversant and knowledgeable
June 21, 2002 and September 17, 2001, respectively, about the law took advantage of his versatility in the practice
reiterating his assertions in his previous pleadings. of law and committed misrepresentations that he and his co-
owners have irrevocable rights, interests and possession over
The record shows that complainant filed a criminal complaint the subject property which convinced complainant into
for estafa against respondent, Banzon, Zabala, Cañete, Alipio purchasing subject property unmindful that the same is not
and Navarro in 199936 arising from the questioned sale of alienable or disposable being a portion of the public domain;
rights. The complaint was twice dismissed by the City whereby respondent violated his solemn oath as member of
Prosecutor of Quezon City. On petition for review, however, the Philippine Bar for having committed such falsehood and
the Department of Justice, through then Secretary Hernando B. misrepresentations to the complainant.39 (Underscoring
Perez, by Resolution37 of March 6, 2002, reversed the supplied).
dismissal of the complaint as it found probable cause to indict
respondent et al. in court. An information for estafa was By CBD Resolution No. XVI-2004-407 of October 7, 2004,
thereupon filed against respondent et al. before the Regional the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the April
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, docketed as Criminal Case 20, 2004 Committee Report and Recommendation.
No. Q-00-94232.
The case was forwarded to this Court for final action pursuant
By Report and Recommendation of April 20, 2004, the IBP to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.40
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), through Commissioner
Lydia A. Navarro, finding respondent to have violated his oath The IBP findings are well-taken.
as a member of the Bar to do no falsehood and
misrepresentations, recommended his suspension from the The Bar is enjoined to maintain a high standard of not only
practice of law for three (3) months, subject to the approval of legal proficiency but of honesty and fair dealing. 41 Thus, a
the members of the Board of Governors. Pertinent portions of member should refrain from doing any act which might lessen
the Report and Recommendation read: in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in
the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession.42
. . . [I]t is evident that as early as of (sic) 1992, the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of NIPAS The misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or
ACT38 prohibited the illegal selling of rights or possession of private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral
the areas occupied within the Bataan Natural Park, the subject character, honesty, probity and good demeanor to thus render
property not excluded as per letter of OIC CENRO Laurino D. him unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law
Mapadanig [illegible], Bagac, Bataan per L.C. map/N.P. Map confer upon him, may be sanctioned with disbarment or
No. 34 to the Municipal Assessor therein and certified on suspension.43
December 1, 1945 that subject property which is within this
category was not subject for disposition; a fact supposed to be
known by the respondent being a resident of Balanga, Bataan Thus, under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
and was in the practice of his profession also in said area. Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney on the following grounds: 1) deceit;
2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; 3) grossly
Aside from the fact that the alleged original owner Monzon immoral conduct; 4) conviction of a crime involving moral
was not among those inventoried occupants  as per Forest turpitude; 5) violation of the lawyer’s oath; 6) willful
Occupancy (IFO) Survey since 1978 up to the latest census in disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court; and 7)
1994 from whom respondent allegedly bought the subject willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without
property; the Absolute Deed of Sale executed between the authority.
complainant Wilson Po Cham and the respondent relative to
the same subject property was not notarized which partook the
nature of a private and not official document. And he may be faulted under Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which mandates a member of the
Bar to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the
Although respondent furnished complainant the foregoing law. Rule 1.01 of the Code specifically enjoins him not to
documents to prove their rights, interest and possession to the engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
subject property, respondent and his co-owners failed to show "Conduct," as used in this rule, is not limited to conduct
a permit from the government conferring upon them rights or exhibited in connection with the performance of professional
concessions over the subject property, which formed part of duties.44
the Bataan Natural Park classified as public and not subject to
26

disposition, therefore respondent and his co-owners have no

rights and interests whatsoever over the subject property and In the case at bar, as reflected above, complainant presented
Page

certifications from the DENR that the property is part of the

public domain and not disposable as it is within the Bataan
National Park. Indeed, by virtue of Proclamation No. rule with many exceptions. The courts sometimes stress the
2445 issued on December 1, 1945, all properties of the public point that the attorney has shown, through misconduct outside
domain therein designated as part of the Bataan National Park of his professional dealings, a want of such professional
were withdrawn from sale, settlement or other disposition, honesty as render him unworthy of public confidence, and an
subject to private rights. unfit and unsafe person to manage the legal business of
others. The reason why such a distinction can be drawn is
On the other hand, respondent has utterly failed to substantiate because it is the court which admits an attorney to the bar, and
his documented claim of having irrevocable rights and the court requires for such admission the possession of a good
interests over the property which he could have conveyed to moral character.
complainant. E.g., he could have presented any document
issued by the government conferring upon him and his alleged x x x"
co-owners, or even upon his alleged predecessors-in-interest,
with any such right or interest, but he presented none. He The rationale of the rule that misconduct, indicative of moral
merely presented a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly unfitness, whether relating to professional or non-professional
executed by a certain Jose R. Monzon in his, Banzon’s and matters, justifies suspension or disbarment, was expressed by
Zabala’s favor on July 25, 1995, a month shy of the execution Mr. Chief Justice Prentice in In Re Disbarment of Peck, with
on August 21, 1995 of the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of eloquence and restraint:
complainant.
"As important as it is that an attorney be competent to deal
The tax declaration and receipt which respondent presented do with the oftentimes intricate matters which may be intrusted to
not help his cause any as neither tax receipts nor realty tax him, it is infinitely more so that he be upright and
declarations are sufficient evidence of the right of possession trustworthy. Unfortunately, it is not easy to limit membership
over realty unless supported by other effective proof.46 The in the profession to those who satisfy the standard of test of
presentation of a tax declaration must indeed have been a fitness. But scant progress in that direction can be hoped for if,
"pretext," as observed by the PENR in its earlier-quoted in the determination of the qualification of professional
portion of its letter-directive to the Balanga Municipal fitness, non-professional dishonor and dishonesty in
Assessor "that the area occupied . . . [is] within alienable and whatsoever path of life is to be ignored. Professional honesty
disposable land." and honor are not to be expected as the accompaniment of
dishonesty and dishonor in other relations. x x x misconduct,
Respondent must thus be faulted for fraudulently inducing indicative of moral unfitness for the profession, whether it be
complainant to purchase, for ₱3,372,533.00, non-existent professional or non-professional, justifies dismission as well
"irrevocable rights, interest and participation" over an as exclusion from the bar."
inalienable property.
The rule in this jurisdiction was stated by Mr. Justice Malcolm
In Lizaso v. Amante47 where therein respondent lawyer enticed in Piatt v. Abordo x xx:
the therein complainant to invest in the casino business with
the proposition that her investment would yield her substantial "The courts are not curators of the morals of the bar. At the
profit, but therein respondent not only failed to deliver the same time the profession is not compelled to harbor all
promised return on the investment but also the principal persons whatever their character, who are fortunate enough to
thereof, this Court took occasion to expound on sanctioning keep out of prison. As good character is an essential
lawyers for committing fraud, deceit or falsehood in their qualification for admission of an attorney to practice, when the
private dealings: attorney’s character is bad in such respects as to show that he
is unsafe and unfit to be entrusted with the powers of an
It is true, of course, that there was no attorney-client attorney, the courts retain the power to discipline
relationship between respondent Amante and complainant him."48 (Italics in the original)
Cuyugan-Lizaso. The transaction that complainant entered
into with respondent did not require respondent to perform This Lizaso ruling was reiterated in Co v.
professional legal services for complainant nor did that Bernardino49 and Lao v. Medel.50
transaction relate to the rendition of professional services by
respondent to any other person. To be sure, complainant is not entirely blameless. Had he
exhibited a modicum of prudence before entering into the
As early as 1923, however, the Court laid down in In Re transaction with respondent, he would have spared himself
Vicente Pelaez the principle that it can exercise its power to from respondent’s sham.
discipline lawyers for causes which do not involve the
relationship of an attorney and client. x x x It is jurisprudentially established though that in a disbarment
27

proceeding, it is immaterial that the complainant is not

"x x x [A]s a general rule, a court will not assume jurisdiction blameless or is in pari delicto as this is not a proceeding to
to discipline one of its officers for misconduct alleged to have
Page

grant relief to the complainant, but one to purge the law

been committed in his private capacity. But this is a general
profession of unworthy members to protect the public and the SO ORDERED.
courts.51

The record does not disclose the status of the estafa case
against respondent. His conviction or acquittal is not,
however, essential insofar as the present administrative case
against him is concerned.52

Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their

own. They are distinct from and they may proceed
independently of x x x criminal cases.

The burden of proof for these types of cases differ. In a

criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; in
an administrative case for disbarment or suspension, "clearly
preponderant evidence" is all that is required. Thus, a criminal
prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if
the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the
administrative proceedings.

It should be emphasized that a finding of guilt in the criminal

case will not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the
administrative case. Conversely, respondent’s acquittal does
not necessarily exculpate him administratively.53 (Emphasis
supplied)

It is not thus sound judicial policy to await the final resolution

of a criminal case before a complaint against a lawyer may be
acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be rendered helpless
from vigorously applying the rules on admission to and
continuing membership in the legal profession during the
whole period that the criminal case is pending final disposition
when the objectives of the two proceedings are vastly
disparate.54

While the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant

the imposition of so severe a penalty as disbarment, the
inherent power of this Court to discipline an errant member of
the Bar must, nonetheless, be exercised as it cannot be denied
that respondent violated his solemn oath as a lawyer not to
engage in unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct.55

The penalty of suspension for three (3) months recommended

by the IBP is not, however, commensurate to the gravity of the
wrong committed by respondent. This Court finds that
respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for One (1)
Year is warranted.

WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Edilberto D. Pizarro, is

SUSPENDED from the practice of law for One (1) Year and
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
offense will merit a more severe penalty.

Let copies of this Decision be entered in the personal record of

respondent as a member of the Bar and furnished the Office of
28

the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and

the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts of the
Page

country.