Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84121:59424&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:40:13+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 187836, March 10, 2015 - SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS, NAMELY, SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, AND VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, Petitioners, v. ALFREDO S. LIM, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, Respondent.; G.R. No. 187916 - JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., BIENVINIDO M. ABANTE, MA. LOURDES M. ISIP-GARCIA, RAFAEL P. BORROMEO JOCELYN DAWIS-ASUNCION, MINORS MARIAN REGINA B. TARAN, MACAILA RICCI B. TARAN, RICHARD KENNETH B. TARAN, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR PARENTS RICHARD AND MARITES TARAN, MINORS CZARINA ALYSANDRA C. RAMOS, CEZARAH ADRIANNA C. RAMOS, AND CRISTEN AIDAN C. RAMOS REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER DONNA C. RAMOS, MINORS JAZMIN SYLLITA T. VILA AND ANTONIO T. CRUZ IV, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER MAUREEN C. TOLENTINO, Petitioners, v. MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, VICE MAYOR FRANCISCO DOMAGOSO, COUNCILORS ARLENE W. KOA, MOISES T. LIM, JESUS FAJARDO LOUISITO N. CHUA, VICTORIANO A. MELENDEZ, JOHN MARVIN C. NIETO, ROLANDO M. VALERIANO, RAYMUNDO R. YUPANGCO, EDWARD VP MACEDA, RODERICK D. VALBUENA, JOSEFINA M. SISCAR, SALVADOR PHILLIP H. LACUNA, LUCIANO M. VELOSO, CARLO V. LOPEZ, ERNESTO F. RIVERA,1 DANILO VICTOR H. LACUNA, JR., ERNESTO G. ISIP, HONEY H. LACUNA-PANGAN, ERNESTO M. DIONISO, JR. AND ERICK IAN O. NIEVA, Respondents.; CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC., PETRON CORPORATION AND PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Intervenors.
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS, NAMELY, SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, AND VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, Petitioners, v. ALFREDO S. LIM, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, Respondent.
JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., BIENVINIDO M. ABANTE, MA. LOURDES M. ISIP-GARCIA, RAFAEL P. BORROMEO JOCELYN DAWIS-ASUNCION, MINORS MARIAN REGINA B. TARAN, MACAILA RICCI B. TARAN, RICHARD KENNETH B. TARAN, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR PARENTS RICHARD AND MARITES TARAN, MINORS CZARINA ALYSANDRA C. RAMOS, CEZARAH ADRIANNA C. RAMOS, AND CRISTEN AIDAN C. RAMOS REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER DONNA C. RAMOS, MINORS JAZMIN SYLLITA T. VILA AND ANTONIO T. CRUZ IV, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER MAUREEN C. TOLENTINO, Petitioners, v. MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, VICE MAYOR FRANCISCO DOMAGOSO, COUNCILORS ARLENE W. KOA, MOISES T. LIM, JESUS FAJARDO LOUISITO N. CHUA, VICTORIANO A. MELENDEZ, JOHN MARVIN C. NIETO, ROLANDO M. VALERIANO, RAYMUNDO R. YUPANGCO, EDWARD VP MACEDA, RODERICK D. VALBUENA, JOSEFINA M. SISCAR, SALVADOR PHILLIP H. LACUNA, LUCIANO M. VELOSO, CARLO V. LOPEZ, ERNESTO F. RIVERA,1 DANILO VICTOR H. LACUNA, JR., ERNESTO G. ISIP, HONEY H. LACUNA-PANGAN, ERNESTO M. DIONISO, JR. AND ERICK IAN O. NIEVA, Respondents.
CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC., PETRON CORPORATION AND PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Intervenors.
Now before us are the following submissions of the intervenor oil companies, to wit: (1) Motion for Reconsideration4 of the Decision dated 25 November 2014 filed by intervenor Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Shell); (2) Motion for Clarification5 filed by intervenor Chevron Philippines, Inc. (Chevron); and (3) Manifestation of Understanding of the Dispositive Portion of the Decision of 15 December 20146 (the correct date of promulgation is 25 November 2014) filed by intervenor Petron Corporation (Petron).
The Motion for Reconsideration must be denied.
It bears stressing that these cases were called in session several times to give the members of the Court time to study and present their respective positions. Before the Decision was finally promulgated, the Court had thoroughly deliberated on the arguments of the parties, including the basic issues herein raised – the rationale for upholding the position of the Court in G.R. No. 156052, on one hand, and the safety measures adopted by the intervenors, including the alleged “imagined fears, causes, surmises and conjectures interposed by the petitioners,” on the other; the argument of whether or not the petition should have been filed with the trial court or at least referred to the Court of Appeals to receive evidence; and the issue on whether or not the enactment of Ordinance No. 8283 has rendered the instant petitions moot and academic. And for failure to reconcile diverse views on several issues, a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion was written.
The grounds relied on being mere reiterations of the issues already passed upon by the Court, there is no need to “cut and paste” pertinent portions of the Decision or re-write the ponencia in accordance with the outline of the instant motion.
2. At the outset, CHEVRON respectfully manifests that it has already completed the relocation of its depot and terminal operations from the Pandacan area, as it ceased using the Pandacan terminals for its fuel and lubricants operations last June 2014. CHEVRON currently has zero volume of lubricants and fuel products for commercial use stored at the Pandacan terminals and the supply requirements of its customers are being withdrawn from the other supply facilities available to CHEVRON.
Stressing that a judgment should be confined to the lis mota of the case, Chevron posits that the paragraph sought to be clarified was a sweeping and categorical pronouncement sans factual basis or evidence against all oil depots inasmuch as the prevailing circumstances, types of products stored or the safety measures in place vary from one depot to another. If such is left as is, it claims that it would be tantamount to interference with the policy making of the political departments of the government.
There are overwhelming reasons stated in the Decision to support the Court’s pronouncement that the very nature of depots has no place in a densely populated area, among others, the very history of the Pandacan terminals where flames spread over the entire City of Manila when fuel storage dumps were set on fire in December 194114 and the other incident of explosion,15 which were both considered in G.R. No. 156052.
Indeed, the bases of the assailed paragraph were confined to the lis mota of these cases, and no other depots were considered. But would the situation be different if, given the same composition of flammable and volatile products, the depots are placed in another densely populated area?
Moreover, the Decision should be taken as a whole and considered in its entirety. The Decision is clear – it is the City’s Ordinance No. 8187 that has been declared unconstitutional and invalid insofar as the continued stay of the Pandacan Oil Terminals is concerned.
For the same reasons, the allegation of encroachment on the policy making power of the political departments of the government is bereft of merit.
The prayer that the submission of an updated comprehensive plan and relocation schedule, including the period for relocation, be deferred until after the Motion is resolved with finality is denied. The compliance period prescribed in the Decision shall remain.
Petron should have cited Ordinance No. 8027, the ordinance ordered to be enforced in G.R. No. 156052, instead of Ordinance No. 8119.
x x x The repealing clause of Ordinance No. 8119 cannot be taken to indicate the legislative intent to repeal all prior inconsistent laws on the subject matter, including Ordinance No. 8027, a special enactment, since the aforequoted minutes (an official record of the discussions in the Sanggunian) actually indicated the clear intent to preserve the provisions of Ordinance No. 8027.
However, in the Decision dated 7 March 2007 in G.R. No. 156052, the Court granted the petition21 which sought the enforcement of Ordinance No. 8027 and the immediate removal of the terminals of the oil companies. By so granting the petition, it necessarily follows that the relocation and transfer it ordered contemplates the complete removal of the facilities.
These cases being a mere sequel to the earlier petition, we so hold that the relocation and transfer contemplated therein include the removal of the facilities, especially so when the city plans on building commercial establishments to replace the Pandacan terminals and provide a source of employment for displaced employees. Accordingly, the comprehensive plan to be submitted within forty-five (45) days from receipt of the Decision shall also include the removal of the facilities.
Let Petron be reminded that the Court did not, by noting its “Manifestation” dated 30 November 2010, consent to consider January 2016 as a separate deadline for compliance with our Decision, which, to repeat, includes the removal of facilities after cessation of operations. The timelines prescribed in the assailed Decision shall be observed to the letter.
4. REMIND Petron that the Court did not, by noting its “Manifestation” dated 30 November 2010, consent to consider January 2016 as a separate deadline for compliance with our Decision, which, to repeat, includes the removal of facilities after cessation of operations. The timelines prescribed in the assailed Decision shall be observed to the letter.
This Resolution is final. Under pain of contempt, no further pleadings, motions or papers in the guise of the above-enumerated submissions shall, thus, be entertained in these cases.
Sereno, C. J., I agree with J. Leonen.
Leonen, J., see separate concurring and dissenting opinion.
1 In a Resolution dated 21 July 2009, the Court granted the motion to drop respondent Ernesto Rivera as a party-respondent on the ground that he actually voted against the enactment of the assailed ordinance. Rollo in G.R. No. 187916, Vol. I, (no proper pagination, should be pp. 148-149).
2Rollo in G.R. No. 187836, Vol. VI, pp. 3147-3210.
4Rollo in G.R. No. 187916, Vol. XI, pp. 5789-5924.
5Rollo in G.R. No. 187836, Vol. XVI, pp. 8929-8939.
7Rollo in G.R. No. 187916, Vol. XI, pp. 5798-5801.; Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of 25 November 2014.
8 324 Phil. 483 (1996).
10Rollo in G.R. No. 187836, Vol. XVI, pp. 8929-8939.
12Id. at 8930; Motion for Clarification filed on 5 January 2015.
13Rollo in G.R. No. 187836, Vol. VI, p. 3202.
16Rollo in G.R. No. 187836, Vol. VI, p. 3203.
17Rollo in G.R. No. 187836, Vol. XVI, pp. 8921-8928.
19Social Justice Society v. Hon. Atienza, Jr., supra note 14 at 698.
20Rollo in G.R. No. 187916, Vol. I, p. 76; Ordinance No. 8027.
21Social Justice Society v. Mayor Atienza, Jr., 526 Phil. 485, 490 (2007).
22Rollo in G.R. No. 187836, Vol. XVI, pp. 8922-8923; Manifestation of Understanding of the Dispositive Portion of the Decision of 15 December 2014.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v.