PART III SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS,

Rule 7 of
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, A.M. No. 09-6-8-
SC
April 13, 2010

Remedial Law Review 2

Report by Marianne B. Sarmiento
Reported to Judge Rustico Panganiban
Dated: 9 March 2019
Section 1. Nature of the writ. -
 The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical
person, entity authorized by law, people’s
organization, non-governmental organization, or any
public interest group accredited by or registered with
any government agency, on behalf of persons whose
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or private individual or entity, involving
environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in
two or more cities or provinces.
Contents of the Petition
The verified petition shall contain the following:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;

(b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent or if the name and personal circumstances
are unknown and uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed appellation;

(c) The environmental law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated, the act or omission
complained of, and the environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

(d) All relevant and material evidence consisting of the affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence,
scientific or other expert studies, and if possible, object evidence;

(e) The certification of petitioner under oath that: (1) petitioner has not commenced any action or filed
any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and no such other
action or claim is pending therein; (2) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete
statement of its present status; (3) if petitioner should learn that the same or similar action or claim
has been filed or is pending, petitioner shall report to the court that fact within five (5) days
therefrom; and

(f) The reliefs prayed for which may include a prayer for the issuance of a TEPO.
 Section 3. Where to file. - The petition shall be filed with the
Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the Court of
Appeals.

 Section 4. No docket fees. - The petitioner shall be exempt

from the payment of docket fees.

 Section 5. Issuance of the writ. - Within three (3) days from

the date of filing of the petition, if the petition is sufficient in
form and substance, the court shall give an order: (a) issuing
the writ; and (b) requiring the respondent to file a verified
return as provided in Section 8 of this Rule. The clerk of court
shall forthwith issue the writ under the seal of the court
including the issuance of a cease and desist order and other
temporary reliefs effective until further order.
 Section 6. How the writ is served. - The writ shall be served upon the respondent by a
court officer or any person deputized by the court, who shall retain a copy on which to
make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be served personally, the rule on
substituted service shall apply.

 Section 7. Penalty for refusing to issue or serve the writ. - A clerk of court who unduly
delays or refuses to issue the writ after its allowance or a court officer or deputized person
who unduly delays or refuses to serve the same shall be punished by the court for contempt
without prejudice to other civil, criminal or administrative actions.

 Section 8. Return of respondent; contents. - Within a non-extendible period of ten (10)

days after service of the writ, the respondent shall file a verified return which shall contain
all defenses to show that respondent did not violate or threaten to violate, or allow the
violation of any environmental law, rule or regulation or commit any act resulting to
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

 All defenses not raised in the return shall be deemed waived.

 The return shall include affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence, scientific or other
expert studies, and if possible, object evidence, in support of the defense of the
respondent.

 A general denial of allegations in the petition shall be considered as an admission thereof.

 Section 9. Prohibited pleadings and motions. - The following pleadings
and motions are prohibited:

 (a) Motion to dismiss;

 (b) Motion for extension of time to file return;

 (c) Motion for postponement;

 (d) Motion for a bill of particulars;

 (e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;

 (f) Third-party complaint;

 (g) Reply; and

 (h) Motion to declare respondent in default.
 Section 10. Effect of failure to file return. - In case the
respondent fails to file a return, the court shall proceed to
hear the petition ex parte.

 Section 11. Hearing. - Upon receipt of the return of the
respondent, the court may call a preliminary conference to
simplify the issues, determine the possibility of obtaining
stipulations or admissions from the parties, and set the
petition for hearing.

 The hearing including the preliminary conference shall not
extend beyond sixty (60) days and shall be given the same
priority as petitions for the writs of habeas corpus, amparo
and habeas data.

 Section 12. Discovery Measures. - A party may file a verified motion for the following reliefs:

 (a) Ocular Inspection; order — The motion must show that an ocular inspection order is necessary
to establish the magnitude of the violation or the threat as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. It shall state in detail the place or places to be
inspected. It shall be supported by affidavits of witnesses having personal knowledge of the violation or
threatened violation of environmental law.

 After hearing, the court may order any person in possession or control of a designated land or other
property to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting or photographing the property or any relevant
object or operation thereon.

 The order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the inspection and the date, time,
place and manner of making the inspection and may prescribe other conditions to protect the
constitutional rights of all parties.

 (b) Production or inspection of documents or things; order – The motion must show that a
production order is necessary to establish the magnitude of the violation or the threat as to prejudice
the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

 After hearing, the court may order any person in possession, custody or control of any designated
documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects in
digitized or electronic form, which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the return,
to produce and permit their inspection, copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant.

 The production order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the production and the
date, time, place and manner of making the inspection or production and may prescribe other
conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all parties.

 Section 13. Contempt. - The court may after hearing
punish the respondent who refuses or unduly delays the
filing of a return, or who makes a false return, or any
person who disobeys or resists a lawful process or order
of the court for indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the
Rules of Court.

 Section 14. Submission of case for decision; filing of
memoranda. - After hearing, the court shall issue an
order submitting the case for decision. The court may
require the filing of memoranda and if possible, in its
electronic form, within a non-extendible period of
thirty (30) days from the date the petition is submitted
for decision.

 Section 15. Judgment. - Within sixty (60) days from the time the petition is
submitted for decision, the court shall render judgment granting or denying the
privilege of the writ of kalikasan.

 The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the following:
 (a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing acts
or neglecting the performance of a duty in violation of environmental laws
resulting in environmental destruction or damage;

 (b) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person
or entity to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the environment;

 (c) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person or
entity to monitor strict compliance with the decision and orders of the court;

 (d) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or private
person or entity to make periodic reports on the execution of the final judgment;
and

 (e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology or to the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration
of the environment, except the award of damages to individual petitioners.
 Section 16. Appeal. - Within fifteen (15) days from the
date of notice of the adverse judgment or denial of
motion for reconsideration, any party may appeal to
the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court. The appeal may raise questions of fact.

 Section 17. Institution of separate actions. - The filing

of a petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan
shall not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal
or administrative actions.
Comment:
 Nature of Writ of Kalikasan
The writ of kalikasan is a legal remedy the office of
which is to protect one’s constitutional right to healthful
ecology.

Writ of kalikasan has the following elements:

 A. Petition may be filed by a natural or juridical person,
entity authorized by law, people’s organization, or any
public interest group accredited by or registered with
any government agency.
 B. Petition is filed on behalf of persons
 C. The persons for whom the petition is filed is
being deprived or may suffer deprivation of
their constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology
 D. The violation or threatened violation is
committed or may be committed by unlawful
act or omission of a public official or employee,
or private individual or entity, involving
environmental damage
 E. The environmental damage is of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces
 Much like writ of habeas corpus, habeas data and amparo,
the writ of kalikasan is immediate in nature. The procedure
for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan is as follows:

Oil Spill Compensation Act of 2007

a. Within three (3) days upon the filing of the petition,
which may include an application for TEPO, the court
issues an order issuing the writ and requiring the
respondent to filer a verified return in accordance with
Section 8 of this Rule.
b. The clerk of court then forthwith issues the writ under the
seal of the court including the issuance of cease and desist
order and other temporary relief effective until further
order.
The court issues the order issuing the writ but it is the clerk of court
that issues the writ of kalikasan.
Section 8. Substituted service. – If service of pleadings, motions,
notices, resolutions, orders, and other papers cannot be made
under the two preceding sections ( Sec. 6 personal service and
Sec. 8 service by mail), the office and place of residence of the
party or his counsel being unknown, service may be delivered by
delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with proof of failure of
both personal service and service by mail. The service is complete
at the time of such delivery. Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
as amended)
c. The writ is then issued upon the respondent by a court officer. If
the writ cannot be served personally, the rule on substituted
service applies.
d. Within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days after service of
the writ, the respondent shall file a verified return which
contains all defenses. Defenses not raised are deemed waived and
a general denial of allegations in the petition shall be considered
as an admission.
e. The respondent must file a verified return within ten (10)
days after service, otherwise the court shall proceed to
hear the petition ex parte.
f. The court may call a preliminary conference to simplify
the issues, determine the possibility of obtaining
stipulations or admissions from the parties, and set the
petition for hearing.
g. The hearing including the preliminary conference shall
not extend beyond sixty (60) days. Any party may file a
motion praying for ocular Inspection and/or production
or inspection of documents or things.
h. After hearing, the court shall issue an order submitting
the case for decision. The court may require the filing of
memoranda and if possible, in its electronic form, within
a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from the
petition is submitted for decision.
i. Judgment to either grant or deny the privilege of the
writ of kalikasan is rendered within (60) days from
the time the petition is submitted for decision.
j. Any adverse judgment or denial of motion for
reconsideration may be elevated on appeal to the
Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
within fifteen (15) days from the date of notice
thereof. The appeal may raise questions of fact.
While appeal by certiorari to the Supreme
Court under Rule 45 ordinarily raise only questions of
law on principle that the Supreme Court is not a trier of
facts; appeal involving the petition for writ of kalikasan
is one of the exceptions when the High court can
review such questions.
It is fundamental that petition for review on certiorari
filed with the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court shall, as a general rule, raise only
questions of law and that this Court is not duty-
bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence
introduced in and considered by the tribunals below.
However, there are recognized exceptions to this rule,
to wit:
a. When the findings are grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises, or conjectures;
b. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
absurd, or impossible;
c. When there is grave abuse of discretion;
d. When the judgment is based on a misapprehension
of facts;
e. When the findings of facts are conflicting;
f. When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of
the case, or its finding are contrary to the admissions of both
the appellant and the appellee;
g. When the CA’s findings are contrary to those by the trail court;
h. When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based;
i. When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondent;
j. When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record; or
k. When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not
disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would
justify a different conclusion. Spouses Moises and Clemencia
Adrada v. Pilhino Sales Corporation, represented by its Branch
Manager, Jojo S. Saet, , G.R. No. 15448, February 23, 2011.
k. Reliefs are those provided under section 15 of the
Rules which does not include damages to individual
petitioners. The proscription in the award of damages
in a petition for writ of kalikasan is similar to the civil
action involving the enforcement or violation of any
environmental law since the objective is to seek
justice for the environment and not to redress injury
caused to individual petitioners.
l. The filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of
kalikasan is not exclusive since the petitioner can file
separate civil, criminal or administrative action
against the respondent.
Illustrative Cases:

Case No. 1.
Barangay 183-Villamor, Zone 20, Pasay City and
Magallanes Village, Makati City v. MERALCO

Case No. 2.
Agham Party v. Ramon Paje
 Case No. 1
 Petition for writ of kalikasan with prayer for the
issuance of a TEPO v Meralco filed before the Court of
Appeals. The petition was the first ever filed before the
Court of Appeals.
 Petitioners are residents and inhabitants of Barangay
183-Villamor, Zone 20, Pasay City and Magallanes
Village, Makati City filed a petition for the issuance of
a Writ of Kalikasan.
 The case arose when on 13 July 2009, without the prior authority
from and approval by Respondent Barangay Council of Barangay
183, Zone 20, Villamor Air Base, Pasay City (hereinafter referred
to as “Respondent Barangay Council”) and without the prior
consultation with the constituents of the barangay, Respondent
Barangay Chairman Cesar S. Toledanes (hereinafter referred to as
“Respondent Toledanes”) issued a Barangay Working Permit
Clearance “for the installation of 115 KV sub-transmission lines
and poles at the 10th and 12th Streets of Barangay 183.” Belatedly,
however, on 02 September 2009, Respondent Barangay Council
passed Barangay Resolution No. S-2009, authorizing Respondent
Toledanes to issue a Barangay Permit authorizing respondent
MERALCO to install high voltage power lines and poles at the
10th and 27th Streets of Barangay 183. Thus, sometime in August
2010, Respondent MERALCO began erecting towering posts
along the 10th, 12th and 27th streets of Barangay 183 and
Magallanes Village. The thirty (30) foot-high poles will hold the
transmission lines that will supply more or less 115 KV of
electricity to the Ninoy Aquino International Airport III (NAIA
3).
 Petitioner prayed that a TEPO and or a Writ of Kalikasan be
issued, ordering Respondents and any person acting on their behalf, to
cease and desist from conducting evacuation works, installing poles
and transmission lines along the entire stretch of 10th, 12th and 27th
Streets of Barangay 183, Zone 20, Villamor, Pasay City and from
energizing and transmitting high voltage electric current through the
said power lines.

The petition was denied by the Court of Appeals for failure by

petitioners to prove that electromagnetic fields (EMF) produced by the
operation of the power lines and the Extreme Low Frequency (ELF)
generated by high-voltage wires could pose health risks such as cancer,
leukemia in children, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, miscarriages,
headaches, memory loss and insomnia. The appellate court reasoned
that in failing to prove the causal link between the illness feared and
the EMF generating from Meralco’s power lines, petitioners have, in
fact, failed to discharge “evidentiary burden:. According to the
appellate court, “At best, the data gathered are purely statistical in
nature with no scientific evidence or conclusion as to whether leukemia
suffered by the subjects have been caused initially by their exposure to
EMF-ELF or the direct impression of some other factor, environmental
or otherwise.”
Illustrative Cases No. 2
On 24 January 2012 Agham Party filed a petition for writ of
kalikasan with prayer for a production order, temporary
environmental protection order & against Ramon Paje, in his
official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); the Protected Area
Management Board of the Taal Volcano Protected Landscape
(TVPL-PAMB).
The petition alleged that from 2007-2009, a process to
come up with a Management Plan as required by the National
Integrated Protected Area System was undertaken by the
Protected Area Management Board. The resulting draft was
unanimously approved in November 2009 by the Board sitting
en banc and was subsequently submitted to the Secretary and is
currently in full force and effect. The plan includes the
enforcement of automatic moratorium to wit:
 Chapter 3 of TVPL Management Plan; the following instances as
monitored by the PASU and BFAR shall trigger the establishment of
a moratorium on fish cage operations for a municipality;
1. When within a year, fishkills have affected 25% of a number of
cages allowed within a municipality.
2. Exceedance over a period of 1 month through daily monitoring in
any basic parameter named above in any water quality monitoring
station within a municipality.
A moratorium shall be automatically in force among the cages
assigned to a municipality when either of the above two conditions
are obtained,.. Only the PAMB En Banc can lift the moratorium
and only after five (5) years and after a technical, independent
determination that the lake has recovered.
In only 12 days from May to June 2011, the National Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Council reported that 2, 105.843
metric tons of fish worth at least 148.7 million, majority are
milkfish (“bangus”), were affected by the fishkill in another part of
Taal Lake, this time due to a temperature change and overturn
aggravated by overshocking of the cages. Petitioner requests that
the Honorable Court take judicial notice of the fact that there is a
fish cage industry in Taal Lake and of the massive fishkill in May.
Attached as ANNEX “D” is the NDRRMC report on the incident
available from its official website.
 In the last twenty years, the same period as the proliferation
of the fish cage industry and the expansion of the piggeries
the lake has transformed from a mesotrophic-to-oligotrophic
state to a eutrophic state, owing mainly to nutrient loading
from the feeding regime used in the industry as well as
nutrient inflow from the piggeries lining the three rivers.
Such conclusion derived by Dr. Rey Donne Papa and Dr.
Macrina Zafaralla are reflected in their scientific paper
attached hereto as ANNEX “E” which states that “based on
analysis of monthly samples collected for an entire year, the
limnetic zooplankton of Lake Taal is typical of tropical
eutropic lakes.”This paper is authenticated by an affidavit of
Dr. Rey Donne Papa attached as ANNEX “F” which further
authenticates the status of the lake. While such nutrients
loading is generally good for fish, the change in tropic status
can lead to blooms of organisms that produce toxins such as
Cerratium and Microcystis and diminish aquatic health,
aside from cause the proliferation of disease-causing
microorganisms such as E. coli.
 Petitioners prayed that the Honorable Supreme Court that after
appreciation of all the facts and evidence in the herein case:
1. To ISSUE a Writ of Kalikasan mandating the respondents to refrain
from issuing any PAMB clearances for fish cage operations within Taal
Lake in compliance with Sec. 45 of RA 8550, and to draft, submit and
execute an implementation plan for the dismantling of illegal cages
starting with the ones in Talisay, Batangas. In the event that the fish
cages are found to be legal, it is prayed that the PAMB be ordered to
adhere to the Management Pan and desist from issuing permits for the
Municipality of Talisay, Batangas where automatic moratorium should
be in effect as per Management Plan.
2. To ORDER the respondents to issue notices of violation to the piggeries
without PAMB clearances and wastewater discharge permits and to the
owner of the fish cages without PAMB clearances, to issue cease and
desist orders and to cause the dismantling and closure of their
operations;
3. To ISSUE a Writ of Continuing Mandamus for the Respondent
Secretary of the DENR and the Protected Area Superintendent to
update the Honorable Court on the progress of the implementation of
other parts of the Management Plan, using the report card system and
the Work Plan incorporated therein on a quarterly basis after
presentation to the PAMB;
 Held:
 On 7 February 2012, the Supreme Court (SC) issued a Writ
of Kalikasan ordering the Protected Area Management
Board to refrain from issuing clearances for fish cage
operations in Taal Lake.”
 PART III SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS,
Rule 8 of
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, A.M.
No. 09-6-8-SC

April 13, 2010

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.
  Differences Between Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing
Mandamus
Summary of Differences
Rule No. in RULES OF PROCEDURE
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
Subject Matter
Petitioner
Respondent
Temporary Environmental
Protection Order (TEPO)
Discovery measures
Venue
Damages
Writ of Kalikasan Writ of Continuing
Mandamus
Rule 7 Rule 8
Unlawful act or omission, life, Neglect or exclusion, law, rule
health or property or right
Any person or agent, NGO/ PO One who is personally
or public interest group aggrieved
Public or Private Entity or Government or Officers
Individual
Ancillary Remedy Ancillary Remedy
Ocular Inspection or No Enumeration
production of evidence
Supreme Court, Court of Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals Appeals, Regional Trial Court
None, separate suit Allow damages for malicious
neglect of duty