Basic Principles - Case No. 3 - Special People v. Canda

SPECIAL PEOPLE INC. FOUNDATION V.
NESTOR CANDA
G.R. NO. 160932 JANUARY 14, 2013
FACTS:
The petitioner was a proponent of a water-resource development and utilization project in

Barangay Jimilia-an in the Municipality of Loboc, Bohol that would involve the tapping and purifying of
water from the Loboc River and the distribution of the purified water to the residents of Loboc and six
other municipalities. The petitioner applied for a Certificate of Non-Coverage with the Environmental
Management Bureau seeking to be exempt from the requirement of the Environment Compliance
Certificate under Section 4 of PD 1586.
Upon evaluating the nature and magnitude of the environmental impact of the project, Nestor
Canda, the Chief of EMB in Bohol rendered his findings that the project is located within a critical area;
hence, Initial Environmental Examination is required and that the project is socially and politically
sensitive therefore proof of social acceptability should be established.
The petitioner appealed Canda’s findings to EMB RD Lipayon claiming that it should also be
issued a CNC because the project was no different from the Loboc-Loay waterworks project of the
DPWH that had recently been issued a CNC. RD Lipayon notified the petitioner that its documents
substantially complied with the procedural aspects of the EMB’s review. He later on informed the
petitioner that an Initial Environment Examination document was required for the project due to its
significant impact in the area. He required the petitioner to submit the different certifications from
various agencies to enable the EMB to determine whether the project was within an environmentally
critical are or not. One of those is the certification coming from PHIVOLCS that the area was not
subjected to an earthquake of at least intensity 7 in the Rossi-Forel scale.
The petitioner submitted eight certifications. PHIVOLCS issued a certification that states that the
project area was subjected to an earthquake of Intensity 7 in the adapted Rossi-Forel scale. Given the
tenor of the certification from PHIVOLCS, RD Lipayon declared that the project was within an
environmentally critical area and that the petitioner was not entitled to the CNC.
The petitioner filed a petition for mandamus in the RTC of Loay, Bohol alleging that it was now
entitled to a CNC as a matter of right after having complied with the certification requirements. The RTC
dismissed the said petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for mandamus is the correct recourse.
RULING:
No.
A petition for mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that compels the performance of duties
that are purely ministerial in nature, not those that are discretionary. A purely ministerial act or duty is
one that an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to
the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of its own judgment upon the
propriety or impropriety of the act done. The duty is ministerial only when its discharge requires neither
the exercise of official discretion or judgment.
In this case, the petitioner did not establish that the grant of its application for the CNC was a
purely ministerial in nature on the part of RD Lipayon. The CNC is a certification issued by the EMB
certifying that a project is not covered by the Environmental Impact Statement System and that the
project is not required to secure an ECC. Proclamation No. 2146 declares the areas and types of projects
as environmentally critical and within the scope of the EIS System. Projects not included in the foregoing
enumeration were considered non-critical to the environment and were entitled to the CNC. The
foregoing considerations indicate that the grant or denial of an application for ECC/CNC is not an act
that is purely ministerial in nature, but one that involves the exercise of judgment and discretion by the
EMB director or Regional Director, who must determine whether the project or project area is classified
as critical to the environment based on the documents to be submitted by the applicant.
Thus, mandamus is not a proper remedy in this case.

Basic Principles - Case No. 3 - Special People v. Canda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Basic Principles - Case No. 3 - Special People v. Canda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Basic Principles - Case No. 3 - Special People v. Canda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPECIAL PEOPLE INC. FOUNDATION V.

G.R. NO. 160932 JANUARY 14, 2013

The petitioner was a proponent of a water-resource development and utilization project in

Thus, mandamus is not a proper remedy in this case.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.