Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82105:56148&catid=1573&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 19:58:34+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 199199, August 27, 2013 - MARICRIS D. DOLOT, CHAIRMAN OF THE BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN-SORSOGON, Petitioner, v. HON. RAMON PAJE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, REYNULFO A. JUAN, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MINES AND GEOSCIENCES BUREAU, DENR, HON. RAUL R. LEE, GOVERNOR, PROVINCE OF SORSOGON, ANTONIO C. OCAMPO, JR., VICTORIA A. AJERO, ALFREDO M. AGUILAR, AND JUAN M. AGUILAR, ANTONES ENTERPRISES, GLOBAL SUMMIT MINES DEV'T CORP., AND TR ORE, Respondents.
MARICRIS D. DOLOT, CHAIRMAN OF THE BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN-SORSOGON, Petitioner, v. HON. RAMON PAJE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, REYNULFO A. JUAN, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MINES AND GEOSCIENCES BUREAU, DENR, HON. RAUL R. LEE, GOVERNOR, PROVINCE OF SORSOGON, ANTONIO C. OCAMPO, JR., VICTORIA A. AJERO, ALFREDO M. AGUILAR, AND JUAN M. AGUILAR, ANTONES ENTERPRISES, GLOBAL SUMMIT MINES DEV'T CORP., AND TR ORE, Respondents.
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Order2 dated September 16, 2011 and Resolution3 dated October 18, 2011 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon, Branch 53. The assailed issuances dismissed Civil Case No. 2011-8338 for Continuing Mandamus, Damages and Attorney’s Fees with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Environment Protection Order.
The case was referred by the Executive Judge to the RTC of Sorsogon, Branch 53 being the designated environmental court.8 In the Order9 dated September 16, 2011, the case was summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner Dolot went straight to this Court on pure questions of law.
The main issue in this case is whether the RTC-Branch 53 has jurisdiction to resolve Civil Case No. 2011-8338. The other issue is whether the petition is dismissible on the grounds that: (1) there is no final court decree, order or decision that the public officials allegedly failed to act on; (2) the case was prematurely filed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (3) the petitioners failed to attach judicial affidavits and furnish a copy of the complaint to the government or appropriate agency.
Such reasoning is plainly erroneous. The RTC cannot solely rely on SC A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular No. 23-2008 and confine itself within its four corners in determining whether it had jurisdiction over the action filed by the petitioners.
The RTC need not be reminded that venue relates only to the place of trial or the geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be brought and does not equate to the jurisdiction of the court. It is intended to accord convenience to the parties, as it relates to the place of trial, and does not restrict their access to the courts.22 Consequently, the RTC’s motu proprio dismissal of Civil Case No. 2011-8338 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is patently incorrect.
At most, the error committed by the petitioners in filing the case with the RTC of Sorsogon was that of improper venue. A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC or the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (Rules) specifically states that a special civil action for continuing mandamus shall be filed with the “[RTC] exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred x x x.”23 In this case, it appears that the alleged actionable neglect or omission occurred in the Municipality of Matnog and as such, the petition should have been filed in the RTC of Irosin.24 But even then, it does not warrant the outright dismissal of the petition by the RTC as venue may be waived.25 Moreover, the action filed by the petitioners is not criminal in nature where venue is an essential element of jurisdiction.26 In Gomez-Castillo v. Commission on Elections,27 the Court even expressed that what the RTC should have done under the circumstances was to transfer the case (an election protest) to the proper branch. Similarly, it would serve the higher interest of justice28 if the Court orders the transfer of Civil Case No. 2011 8338 to the RTC of Irosin for proper and speedy resolution, with the RTC applying the Rules in its disposition of the case.
At this juncture, the Court affirms the continuing applicability of Admin. Circular No. 23-2008 constituting the different “green courts” in the country and setting the administrative guidelines in the raffle and disposition of environmental cases. While the designation and guidelines were made in 2008, the same should operate in conjunction with the Rules.
In its Resolution dated October 18, 2011, which resolved the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal, the RTC further ruled that the petition was dismissible on the following grounds: (1) there is no final court decree, order or decision yet that the public officials allegedly failed to act on; (2) the case was prematurely filed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (3) there was failure to attach judicial affidavits and furnish a copy of the complaint to the government or appropriate agency.29 The respondents, and even the Office of the Solicitor General, in behalf of the public respondents, all concur with the view of the RTC.
When any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station in connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein, or unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such right and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty, attaching thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the petition concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation, and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied, and to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the malicious neglect to perform the duties of the respondent, under the law, rules or regulations. The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.
The final court decree, order or decision erroneously alluded to by the RTC actually pertains to the judgment or decree that a court would eventually render in an environmental case for continuing mandamus and which judgment or decree shall subsequently become final.
The Court, likewise, cannot sustain the argument that the petitioners should have first filed a case with the Panel of Arbitrators (Panel), which has jurisdiction over mining disputes under R.A. No. 7942.
Consequently, resort to the Panel would be completely useless and unnecessary.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order dated September 16, 2011 and Resolution dated October 18, 2011 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Branch 53, dismissing Civil Case No. 2011-8338 are NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE. The Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon is DIRECTED to transfer the case to the Regional Trial Court of Irosin, Branch 55, for further proceedings with dispatch. Petitioner Maricris D. Dolot is also ORDERED to furnish the respondents with a copy of the petition and its annexes within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision and to submit its Compliance with the RTC of Irosin.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Castillo, Abad, Perez, Mendoza, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Villarama, Jr., on official leave.
2 Penned by Presiding Judge Rofebar F. Gerona; id. at 34-35.
3 Penned by Executive Judge Victor C. Gella; id. at 43-45.
11 The motion for reconsideration was resolved by the Pairing Judge of Branch 53 since the Presiding Judge recused himself from the case.
13 Re: Designation of Special Courts to Hear, Try and Decide Environmental Cases. Issued by the Court on January 28, 2008. Branch 53 of Sorsogon is one of the special courts designated in the Fifth Judicial Region. The other courts are Branch 1 (Legaspi City), Branch 13 (Ligao City), Branch 15 (Tabaco City), Branch 25 (Naga City), Branch 32 (Pili), Branch 35 (Iriga City), Branch 38 (Daet) and Branch 47 (Masbate City).
16Landbank of the Philippines v. Villegas, G.R. No. 180384, March 26, 2010, 616 SCRA 626, 630.
17Platinum Tours & Travel, Inc. v. Panlilio, 457 Phil. 961, 967 (2003).
18Gomez-Castillo v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 187231, June 22, 2010, 621 SCRA 499, 507.
20 317 Phil. 9 (1995).
21 Id. at 22, citing Malaloan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104879, May 6, 1994, 232 SCRA 249, 261.
22Mendiola v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159746, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 27, 50.
23 Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Rule 8, Section 2.
Rule 1, Section 1, meanwhile, states that the rules shall govern the procedure in civil, criminal and special civil actions before the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts involving enforcement or violations of environmental and other related laws, rules and regulations.
25Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. v. Registry of Deeds of Parañaque, 398 Phil. 626, 632 (2000).
26Union Bank of the Philippines v. People, G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012, 667 SCRA 113, 122.
27 G.R. No. 187231, June 22, 2010, 621 SCRA 499.
28 1987 CONSTITUTION, Article IV, Section 5; Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, as amended, Rule 4, Section 3; A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC (Revised), March 12, 2013.
30 G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 661.
31Manila International Airport Authority v. Olongapo Maintenance Services, Inc., 567 Phil. 255, 281-282 (2008).
32 The petition must also specify that it concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation and must pray that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied.
33Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. Province of Aklan, G.R. No. 196870, June 26, 2012, 674 SCRA 555, 606.
34 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 8, Section 8.
37 G.R. No. 178188, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 314.
38 Id. at 331-332, citing Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd., 492 Phil. 682, 696-697 (2005).
39 RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 2, Section 3.
40Tomas v. Santos, G.R. No. 190448, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 645, 650-651.

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