This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-02-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Be that as it may, we shall resolve both the issues proper in a writ of kalikasan case and those which are not, commingled as it were here, because of the exceptional character of this case. We take judicial notice of the looming power crisis that our nation faces. Thus, the resolution of all the issues in this case is of utmost urgency and necessity in order to finally determine the fate of the project center of this controversy. If we were to resolve only the issues proper in a writ of kalikasan case and dismiss those not proper therefor, that will leave such unresolved issues open to another round of protracted litigation. In any case, we find the records sufficient to resolve all the issues presented herein. We also rule that, due to the extreme urgency of the matter at hand, the present case is an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.[117] As we have often ruled, in exceptional cases, we can suspend the rules of procedure in order to achieve substantial justice, and to address urgent and paramount State interests vital to the life of our nation. | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The CA also cited Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. Province of Aklan,[40] where it was held that although the Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan, Malay, Province of Aklan and the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Malay had passed resolutions favorably endorsing the project of the Province of Aklan to reclaim several hectares of foreshore land in Caticlan, Malay, the Province of Aklan must still comply with the terms and conditions contained in the said resolutions of the Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan and Sangguniang Bayan of Malay. The Court invoked the duty of local governments to ensure the quality of the environment pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1586, which established the Environmental Impact Statement System. | |||||
|
2013-08-27 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The writ of continuing mandamus is a special civil action that may be availed of "to compel the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law."[33] The petition should mainly involve an environmental and other related law, rule or regulation or a right therein. The RTC's mistaken notion on the need for a final judgment, decree or order is apparently based on the definition of the writ of continuing mandamus under Section 4, Rule 1 of the Rules, to wit:(c) Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court in an environmental case directing any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to perform an act or series of acts decreed by final judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied. (Emphasis ours) | |||||