~epublic of tbe ~bilippines

~upreme <!Court
:fflanila
EN BANC

CORDILLERA GLOBAL G.R. No. 215988

NETWORK, REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRESIDENT, GLORIA Present:
ABAEO; CORDILLERA
PEOPLES ALLIANCE, BERSAMIN, C.J
REPRESENTED BY ITS CARPIO,
SECRETARY-GENERAL, PERALTA,
ABIGAIL B. ANON GOS; DEL CASTILLO*,
CORDILLERA INDIGENOUS PERLAS-BERNABE**,
PEOPLES LEGAL CENTER, LEONEN,
REPRESENTED BY ITS JARDELEZA ***,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CAGUIOA,
RHODA DALANG-GARCIA; REYES, A., JR.,
CORDILLERA ECOLOGICAL GESMUNDO,
PINE TREE CENTER, REYES, J., JR.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS HERNANDO,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DR. CARANDANG, and
MICHAEL BENGWAYAN; LEON LAZARO-JAVIER, JJ
ALTOMONTE, GABRIELA
ALTOMONTE, AND AENEAS
ALTOMONTE, REPRESENTED
BY THEIR FATHER, KARLO
MARKO ALTOMONTE;
KATHLEA FRANCYNN GAWANI
D. YANGOT AND LEANDRO
KIERAN LUGAT D. YANGOT III,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
MOTHER, CHERYL L. DAYTEC-
YANGOT; ZACHARY T. DISTOR
AND AGATHA ZITA T. DISTOR,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
FATHER, MILO S. DISTOR;
JUSTICE YVONNE D. DONAAL,

• On wellness leave.
•• On leave.
••• No part and on wellness leave.

I
Decision 2 G.R. No. 21598~

REPRESENTED BY HER
FATHER, CHRISTOPHER
DONAAL, TRICIA KATRINA M.
ARNEDO AND MARGARET
JALREYE M. ARNEDO,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
MOTHER, MA. TERESA M.
ARNEDO; KENSWORTH
CORPUZ, REPRESENTED BY
CARLITO C. TAAWAN; MARIE
A. BALANGUE, MIGUEL
ARVISU, GIDEON OMERO,
PAUL ALLAIN R. ISICAN,
KARMINN CHERYL DINNEY D.
YANGOT, CRISTINA LAPPAO,
NELSON LAPPAO, FLORENDA
PEDRO, EDGAR Z. KAWIG,
JUDITH G. FANAO, JULIO
PUNAY, ARNOLD ABRIL,
JEMELYN CORPUZ, MARY
LEITH "SUMITRA"
GUTIERREZ, ANDREA M.
COSALAN, RHADA JUNE
MANTILEZ, NELSON JOSEPH S.
ALABANZA, RHIS BAYUCCA,
JOSE OLARTE II, SONIA F.
GALANG, SHIELO G. SABAOT,
ANTHONY B. LAKING,
DONATELA S.R. MOLINTAS,
RUTH W. DEMOT, ROCKY A.
CAJIGAN, RON ALDO
VIL LAM OR, GLENN V.
VILLAMOR, FIDEL DEMOT,
SCOT MAGKACHI SABOY,
ANNIELYN PUCKING, LUCIA B.
RUIZ, CHESTER LAB-ING,
MARISSA A. DERIJE FAITH
MARIETTE DAO-AY, GABRIEL
CRISTOBAL IV, ISIDRO GAYO,
EDWIN A. NGINA, JASON
DOMLING, J.P. PUNO, JULIA A.
BAEYENS, WESLEY E. SAYUD,
CLIFFORD M. LORENA, JERRY
MAYONA, ZABRINA D. IBASCO,
PRINCESS EUNICE CABURAO,
ZITA J. GONGON, ALBERTO
ROMAR
MAURICIO
R.
PITAG,
ORDONA,
RYLYN
I
Decision 3 G.R. No. 215988

JOHAN A. DANGANAN,
JEFFREY C. CHIU, MICHAEL
ANGELO A. SOTERO, LINDA
ALISTO, GREGORY P. RUGAY,
VANESSA B. OLARTE, BRIAN
BATONG, MILAGROS LIWANAG
JOSE, BABYLYNN M. DEGAY,
EDEN JARLAWE T. VIRGINIO,
IVY JOY D. BUENAOBRA, RICO
M. GUTIERREZ, JOHN PAWi,
CARMELLIE ANJOY M.
SALVADO, JOAN MULLER,
ROBERTO R. OCAMPO, DINAH
DAYTEC AGCAOILI, CARMEN
DAYTEC, ERVEEN ROSS
PALMA, BUMBO VILLANUEVA,
KHRISTINE E. MOLITAS,
KATHLEEN G. BUGNOSEN,
GLORIA B. LIMPIN, REY
ANGELO E. AURELIO,
RESTITUTO REFUERZO,
MARCH FIANZA, FLORABEL M.
SALES, DEAN MICHAEL
CUANSO, BENJAMIN BIDANG,
JR., JEANNIE MAY DAMOSLOG,
JANICE M. DONAAL,
CRISTOBAL SANTIAGO,
ETHAN ANDREW VENTURA,
MA. CRISTINA BALAJADIA,
ROD ELIZA ABELLA
ALTAMONTE, BEDE BAWAYAN,
JR., CHRISTEL PAY SENG, PAUL
LESTER DONAAL, VIROLABEL
LADIO, HENDRIX SANCHEZ,
GASPAR ELIZUR DONAAL,
MICHAEL VINCENT CABRERA,
SANTOS BAYUCCA, ELMER M.
DATAYAN, ASH Y. VELASCO,
POLEEN CARLA C. ROSITO,
MIGHT GUPIT, JULIUS B.
MANABENG, JENNY GRACE M.
ABOEN, JOJO LA MARIA,
VLADIMIR D. CAYABAS, JOHN
LAKING, CHARLENE DAVID,
GERALDINE D. CACHO, PERRY
JOHN P. MENDOZA, HONORIO
B. SAGMAYAO, RODOLFO
"RUDZ" A. PARAAN, JOHN ERIC
y
Decision 4 G.R. No. 215988

JOSEPH S. AGUILAR, CERI

PAUL A. LOMAS-E, HECTOR
ZARATE KAWIG, RICHARD
DEAN F. BASA, MICHELLE B.
SAMUEL, FERDY K. BAYASEN,
AND SILVESTRE QUINTOS,
Petitioners,

-versus-

SECRETARY RAMON J.P. PAJE,

IN HIS CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES; ATTY. JUAN
MIGUEL T. CUNA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES AND SM
INVESTMENTS CORPORATION;
SECRETARY ROGELIO
SINGSON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
THE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS,
Respondents.

x-------------------------------------------x
JUDY LYN C. ADAJAR, RUBY C.
ALTERADO, LEONOLYN M.
ANAYASAN, MYLA A. APIGO,
MARILOU N. ARAGON, LOIDA
A. BACBAC, JULIET M.
BADILLA, OLIVIA M.
BALADLAD, ROXANNE K.
BALANGCOD, MARIA JOCELYN
J. BALDERAS, MARIVIC
BALWAYAN, YVONNE F.
BANGASAN, DIONISIA E.
BANGLAY, RODEL E. BANIAGA,
~~
Decision 5 G.R. No. 215988

GRACIA D. BARIA, MA. ADA E.

BASILIO, ESTRELLA C.
BAUTISTA, EVA M. BAUTISTA,
MARIBEL S. BINAY-AN,
JOSEPHINE A. BORILLO, ANNIE
MARIE B. BUENAFE, CHERRY
H. BULONG, MARISOL B.
CABUNAG, EDITH L. CALDITO,
ANGELICA W. CAMBA,
MARLON L. CAOILE,
BRIGETTE M. CHALMAS,
MYAN P. CUGA-AY, ELIZABETH
A. DALAN, MA. GLENDA D. DE
LA PENA, JESSICA A. DE VERA,
JOHN PAUL A. DELA CRUZ,
CARMILLA V. DELOS SANTOS,
MARI CRIS DIPASUPIL,
BEATRIZ CONNIE M. ESCANO,
DEBBIE B. ESGUERRA,
PATRICIA PAULINE A.
ESTOESTA, LADY DIANA D.
ESTRADA, PRECILLA L. FUYAG,
JANINA G. GALLEGOS, NOMER
L. GINGO, JOCELYN T.
BUMPENG, CECILIA G.
GUNDRAN, JENNY M. HIPONA,
LUNA C. IBANEZ, FLORIDA F.
IDMILAO, JOE PIT R.
LAURENCIO, AILENE M.
LAYNO, JEANETTE S.
MANANSALA, HILARIA M.
MANUGUID, BRENNY MAY K.
MENDOZA, DINAH D.
NAVARRO, AMANDA M. PADER,
SAMUEL A. PALEYAN, DENNIS
JULIUS R. PANEDA, RUBY L.
PARAZO, MARY GRACE A.
PASTOR, DONNALYN F. PRADO,
SHENNA APRIL V. QUINTO,
ESPERANZA E. ROSIDO,
ROSALINA N. SAMPAGA, JUDY
P. SIA, MARY-AN L. SUPSUPIN,
MARILOU A. TA-A, MARY ANN
L. TABAO-EC, MICAH JOY H.
MATAROMA, EUGENIA N.
TAYABAN, RUBY L. TAYNEC,
RITA M. TINIPAC, MICHELLE R.
TUALLA, JOAN D. VALDEZ, /
Decision 6 G.R. No. 215988

RODRIGO B. VALDEZ, HAZEL P.

VALENTIN, VICTORIA A.
VENTURA, ES TE LITA A.
WALLANG, AND VERONICA P.
ZARATE,
Petitioners,

-versus-

SECRETARY RAMON J.P. PAJE,

IN HIS CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES; ATTY. JUAN
MIGUEL T. CUNA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES; DIRECTOR
CLARENCE BAGUILAT, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS THE REGIONAL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES-CORDILLERA
ADMINISTRATIVE REGION;
SECRETARY ROGELIO
SINGSON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
THE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS; HON.
MAURICIO DOMOGAN, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF
BAGUIO CITY; SM PRIME
HOLDINGS AND SM
SUPERMALLS, AND THEIR
OFFICERS AND AGENTS
ACTING ON THEIR BEHALF,
Respondents. Promulgated:
April 10, 2019
x------------------------------------------------------------------ ( /
Decision 7 G.R. No. 215988

DECISION

LEONEN,J.:

The depth, quality, and complexity of our forests' biodiversity is a

marker of humanity's enlightenment. Every tree saved from being sacrificed
in the name of profits matters.

Shortcuts in the processes prescribed by law to protect the

endowments of nature should never be countenanced.

This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 filed by Cordillera

Global Network, representing concerned residents of Baguio City, assailing
the Court of Appeals December 12, 2014 Decision2 in CA-G.R. CV No.
100245. The Court of Appeals upheld the December 3, 2012 Decision3 of
the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case Nos. 7595-R, 7629-R, and 7626-R.

On September 13, 2001, the Department of Environment and Natural

Resources issued Environmental Compliance Certificate CARO 106-04 7-
1204 to SM Investments Corporation for its SM Pines Resort Project. This
mix-use, eco-tourism project would span 8.5 hectares and cover a shopping
mall, a hotel, service apartments, a multi-purpose entertainment center, and
other related structures. 5

Construction of SM City Baguio, located within the SM Pines Resort

complex, was completed in November 2003. A few years later, SM City
Baguio undertook to expand its existing mall on Luneta Hill (the Expansion
Project) to increase parking and commercial spaces. 6

On December 29, 2010, 7 SM Investments Corporation submitted an

Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan to the
Environmental Management Bureau-Cordillera Administrative Region as
part of its application to amend its Environmental Compliance Certificate.

Rollo, pp. 12-92.

Id. at 93-124. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, and concurred
f
in by Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles of the Special Ninth
Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
Id. at 199-218. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Antonio M. Esteves of Branch 5,
Regional Trial Court, Baguio City.
Id. at 1719-1722.
Id.atl719.
6
Id.at713.
Id. at 489, Affidavit of Engineer Bien C. Mateo.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 215988

On April 5, 2011, 8 the Environmental Management Bureau-Cordille1..:.

Administrative Region requested that additional information on the
inventory of the affected trees, among others, be included in thc-
Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan.

On April 25, 2011, 9 SM Investments Corporation submitted the

revised Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan. 10

On September 22, 2011, 11 the Department of Environment and

Natural Resources granted SM Investments Corporation's request for the
amendment of its Environmental Compliance Certificate.

On October 27, 2011, 12 the Department of Environment and Natural

Resources-Cordillera Administrative Region, with clearance 13 from then
Depmiment of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary Ramon J.P.
Paje (Secretary Paje), granted SM Investments Corporation's request for a
permit to cut and earth-ball the Benguet pine, Alnus trees, and saplings that
would be affected by the Expansion Project. However, the permit's issuance
was subject to several conditions, including the conduct of public
consultations with stakeholders and the procurement of an environmental
compliance certificate. 14

On December 19, 2011, 15 the City Planning and Development Office

of Baguio City granted locational clearance for the Expansion Project.

On February 27, 2012, Cordillera Global Network filed a Complaint 16

(first environmental case) against SM Investments Corporation, Secretary
Paje, Atty. Juan Miguel Cuna, the director of the Environmental
Management Bureau, and Secretary Rogelio L. Singson of the Department
of Public Works and Highways.

Docketed as Civil Case No. 7595-R, 17 the first environmental case

prayed, among others, that a temporary environmental protection order be
immediately issued to enjoin SM Investments Corporation from cutting
and/or earth-balling the 182 Benguet pine and Alnus trees on Luneta Hill. 18

fl
Id. at 1826.
Id. at 491.
10
Id. at 704-1316.
11
Id. at 1786.
12
Id. at 231-232.
13
Id. at 289-290.
14
Id. at 231-232.
15
Id. at 1794.
16
Id. at 1988-2017.
17 Id.
18
Id. at 200, RTC Decision.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 215988

On March 19, 2012, 19 SM Investments Corporation reiterated its

request to cut or earth-ball the affected trees. On April 4, 2012, 20 Regional
Executive Director Clarence L. Baguilat (Regional Executive Director
Baguilat) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-
Cordillera Administrative Region gave the go-signal to earth-ball the trees.

On April 9, 2012, SM Investments Corporation began earth-balling

the Benguet pine and Alnus trees. 21

Meanwhile, the trial court had begun conducting hearings on the

prayer for a temporary environmental protection order. As this was pending
resolution, Cordillera Global Network filed on April 10, 2012 an Urgent
Motion for the Issuance of the Temporary Environmental Protection Order
with a Prayer for the Conduct of an Ocular Inspection. 22

That same day, the trial court granted23 the Motion and issued a
Temporary Environmental Protection Order effective for 72 hours.

Upon receipt of the Temporary Envirorunental Protection Order on

April 11, 2012, SM Investments Corporation ceased its earth-balling and
transplanting operations. 24

On April 13, 2012, Cordillera Global Network filed a Motion to

extend the Temporary Environmental Protection Order. 25 That same day,
the trial court26 extended the effectivity of the Temporary Environmental
Protection Order to cover the pendency of the court proceedings in Civil
Case No. 7595-R.

Cordillera Global Network then filed a petition to cite SM

Investments Corporation in contempt for violating the Temporary
Environmental Protection Order. This was docketed as Civil Case No.
7626-R. 27

On April 13, 2012, Judy Lyn Adajar and 75 other concerned Baguio
City residents (Adajar, et al.) filed a new Complaint28 (the second

19

20
21
Id. at 1830.
Id. at 1830.
Id. at 1832.
I
22
Id. at 20 I.
23 Id. at 225-226. The Order in Civil Case No. 7595-R was penned by Pairing Judge Cleto R. Villacorta
III of Branch 5, Regional Trial Court, Baguio City.
24
Id. at 1833.
25
Id. at 201.
26
Id. at 228-230. The Order was penned by Presiding Judge Antonio M. Esteves of Branch 5, Regional
Trial Court, Baguio City.
27
Id. at 201.
28
Id. at 2019-2037.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 215988

environmental case) against SM Supermalls, SM Prime Holdings, Inc., and

Regional Executive Director Baguilat. It was docketed as Civil Case No.
7629-R.

The two (2) environmental cases and the contempt petition werr
consolidated. 29

Cordillera Global Network and Adajar, et al. both alleged that the
cutting or earth-balling of the 182 trees on Luneta Hill would severely
damage the enviromnent and health of Baguio City residents. They also
assailed the regularity of the permits issued, further claiming that the
Expansion Project violated zoning and environmental laws. 30

Defendants asserted that the pertinent permits were issued only after
strict compliance with the relevant rules and regulations. The public
officials added that a team had been created to monitor the cutting and earth-
balling of the trees. They also emphasized that they immediately complied
with the Temporary Environmental Protection Order upon receipt from the
trial court and directed private defendants to pursue remedial measures over
the affected trees. 31

In its December 3, 2012 Decision, 32 the Regional Trial Court

dismissed the consolidated cases.

The Regional Trial Court held that Cordillera Global Network and
Adajar, et al. possessed the necessary personality to file the environment: 1
cases under the principle of transcendental imp01iance. 33 However, the1.·
cases did not fall under any of the exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies. Thus, the cases were dismissible on procedural
grounds. 34

Moreover, the trial court noted that while their witness, Dr. Michael
A. Bengwayan, quantified the effects of removing 182 trees on Luneta Hill,
his testimony appeared to be "mere conclusions of fact devoid of any
scientific basis" 35 and failed to prove that removing the trees would have a
detrimental effect causing irreparable damage to the environment and /}
Baguio City residents. 36 )i

29
Id. at 201.
30
Id. at 201-202.
31
Id. at 202.
32
Id. at 199-218.
33
Id. at 204.
34
Id. at 204-206.
35
Id. at 207.
36 Id.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 215988

In contrast, Dr. Armando Palijon, a common witness for both parties,

testified that removing the trees would not cause irreparable damage to the
environment, as the loss would be compensated by SM Investments
Corporation's planned green building and the thousands of saplings it
planted in Busol Watershed. 37

The trial court also gave weight to the testimony of Engineer Cherry
B. Rivera, witness for SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and an environmental
engineer who was part of the team that conducted the Environmental Impact
Assessment on the Expansion Project. She testified that the mitigation
measures in the Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan
had accounted for minimizing the project's environmental impact. 38

Likewise, the trial court held that Cordillera Global Network and
Adajar, et al. failed to substantiate their claims of irregularities in the tree-
cutting and earth-balling permits 39 and building permits 40 issued to SM
Investments Corporation.

The trial court also set aside the challenges raised against the amended
Environmental Compliance Certificate. It stated that the field of expertise of
Professor Cecilia M. Austria (Dr. Austria)-who questioned the reliability of
the Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan-is zoology,
not environmental science. This makes her incompetent to determine lapses
in the Environmental Impact Assessment. On the other hand, the trial court
found that SM Investments Corporation and its subsidiaries were able to
prove that it had complied with the requirements to issue an environmental
compliance certificate. 41

The trial court ruled that there was no reason to prevent SM

Investments Corporation and its subsidiaries from pushing through with the
Expansion Project. 42

The dispositive of the Regional Trial Court Decision read:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the

Complaints dated February 23, 2012 and April 13, 2012 and the Amended
Urgent Petition to Cite Defendant for Contempt dated April 20, 2012.

The Temporary Environmental Protection Order dated April

10, 2012 is hereby LIFTED.
I
37
Id. at 208.
3s Id.
39
Id. at 209-210.
40 Id. at 214-215.
41 Id. at212-213.
42
Id. at 216.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 215988

No costs.

SO ORDERED. 43 (Emphasis in the original)

After filing their notices of appeal, 44 Cordillera Global Network and

Adajar, et al. filed their respective appeals45 before the Court of Appeals.

In its December 12, 2014 Decision, 46 the Court of Appeals denied the
appeals and upheld the findings of the Regional Trial Court.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Cordillera Global Network and

Adajar, et al. 's claim that the case fell under the exceptions to the rule c i
exhaustion of administrative remedies since there was no patent illegality. lL
pointed out that despite not being parties to the applications for the
environmental compliance certificates, tree-cutting and earth-balling
permits, and building permits, they still should have come to the appropriate
administrative tribunals to resolve questions of fact. Such questions are
generally referred to an administrative agency for its "special knowledge
[and] experience ... to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. " 47

Moreover, the Court of Appeals held that Cordillera Global Network

and Adajar, et al. failed to rebut the presumption of regularity of official
acts. It explained that they failed to prove their allegations of irregularity in
the issuance of the amended Environmental Compliance Certificate, building
permit, and tree-cutting and earth-balling permit. 48

The dispositive pmiion of the Court of Appeals Decision read:

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 49 (Emphasis in the original)

On March 6, 2015, Cordillera Global Network filed a Petition £ r

Review on Certiorari with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ
of Preliminary Injunction. 50

On March 24, 2015, this Court required respondents to comment on

the Petition. It also issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining private y
43
Id. at 218.
44
Id. at 25.
15
' Id. at 25 and I 25-198. Adajar, et al. 's Appeal Brief was not in the rollo.
16
' Id. at 93-124.
47
Id. at I09-I IO.
48
Id.atll0-111.
49
Id. at 122-123.
50
Id. at 12-92.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 215988

respondents from "implementing the assailed expansion plan, and

performing any cutting and balling of trees in Luneta Hill." 51

Private respondents SM Investments Corporation, 52 as well as SM

Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center Management Corporation, 53 filed
their respective comments, with the latter's Comment containing a motion to
dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order.

On April 1, 2015, public respondents filed a Motion for Extension to

File Comment. 54 Later, on April 20, 2015, they filed their Comment. 55

On October 13, 2015, private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc.

and Shopping Center Management Corporation moved to set the case for
oral arguments and dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order. 56 On
November 26, 2015, they filed their Third Urgent Reiterative Motion to
Dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order. 57

On September 24, 2015, petitioners filed their Very Urgent Comment

to the Motions to Lift the Temporary Restraining Order. 58 In turn, private
respondents filed their respective replies 59 on January 14, 2016.

In its April 19, 2016 Resolution, 60 this Court gave due course to the
Petition and required the parties to submit their memoranda. It also
reiterated the previously issued Temporary Restraining Order but modified it
to exclude the phrase, "implementing the assailed expansion plan[.]" 61

The parties later filed their respective memoranda. 62

Petitioners assert that the Expansion Project is a misnomer as it is an

entirely new project that includes an 11-story mall and a five (5)-story
parking lot. They add that the Expansion Project violated zoning and city
ordinances limiting building height to a maximum of six (6) stories. 63

51
Id. at415-419.
I
52
Id. at 420-464.
53
Id. at 613-702.
54
Id.at605-610.
55
Id. at 2698-2736.
56
Id. at 2870-2889.
57
Id. at 2907-2921.
58
Id. at 2859-2864.
59 Id. at 2929-2942, SM Investments Corporation, and 2943-2962, SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and
Shopping Center Management Corporation.
60
Id. at 2967-A-C.
61
Id. at 2967-B.
62
Id. at 2979-3033, 3034-3062, 3063-3141, and 3163-3247.
63
Id.atl7.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 215988

Petitioners maintain that the Department of Environment and Natural

Resources erred in not requiring an environmental impact assessment prior
to the issuance of the amended Environmental Compliance Ce1iificate. They
insist that private respondents needed to obtain a separate environmental
compliance certificate for the tree-cutting and earth-balling of the 182 trees
since the project was not a mere expansion, as private respondents claimed,
but a totally new project. 64

Petitioners further state that neither an environmental impact

assessment nor public consultations were conducted before the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources issued the tree-cutting and earth-
balling permit. They maintain that private respondents only consulted smc. 11
groups, when various groups and residents expressed their opposition to the
Expansion Project. 65 They further insist that the Court of Appeals unduly
expanded the ruling in Lina v. Pano 66 to favor private respondents. 67

Petitioners further posit that the Court of Appeals erred when it relied
on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties despite
evidence to the contrary. 68

Citing Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. Aklan, 69 petitioners further assert

that as a non-party to an application for an environmental compliance
certificate, it was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before it
could bring its case to a court oflaw. 70

In their Comments, 71 private respondents claim that petitioners raised

questions of fact improper in a petitioner for review under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. 72 Private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and
Shopping Center Management Corporation add that the Petition was
defective since out of the 202 claimed petitioners, only 30 signed the
Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping. 73

Private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center

Management Corporation then state that the case has been rendered moot
because: (1) the subject permits have already expired or have been amender:,
74
superseded, or suspended; and (2) the affected trees have been removed.
f
M Id. at 17-18.
65
Id. at 21-22.
66 416 Phil. 438 (200 I) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
67
Rollo, pp. 43-44.
68
Id. at 67-72.
6
') 689 Phil. 218(2012) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, En Banc].
70
Rullo, pp. 40-42.
71
Id. at 420-464 and 613-702.
72
Id. at 420-421 and 645.
73
Id. at 648-649.
74
Id. at 650-651.
Decision 15 G.R. No. 215988

Moreover, private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and

Shopping Center Management Corporation75 and public respondents 76 both
point out that petitioners failed to exhaust the available administrative
remedies. Public respondents assert that prematurely resorting to a court of
law amid available administrative remedies was fatal to petitioners' case. 77

Additionally, public respondents confirm that the amended

Environmental Compliance Certificate dated September 22, 2011 was
legally and validly issued. They also confirm that in this case, a separate
environmental compliance certificate was not needed before a tree-cutting or
earth-balling permit could be issued. They claim that a separate
environmental compliance certificate would only be superfluous since the
tree-cutting and earth-balling activities were already part of the
implementation of the Expansion Project covered by the amended
Environmental Compliance Certificate dated September 22, 2011. 78

Public respondents maintain that social acceptability, as understood

by petitioners, is not required to issue an environmental compliance
certificate. Instead, what is required is the stakeholders' participation in the
environmental impact assessment process. Nonetheless, public respondents
note that even if this was not mandatory, private respondents still conducted
public consultations and submitted a report on social acceptability. 79

Private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center

Management Corporation allege that petitioners erred in relying on Lina,
which categorically stated that public projects needed public consultation but
was silent on a similar requirement for private projects. 80 They likewise
claim that Boracay Foundation, Inc. does not apply in petitioners' case. 81

On the issue of validity of the issued permits, private respondent SM

Investments Corporation refutes petitioners' claim that Baguio City's central
business district is a low-density commercial zone over which a large mall
or parking lot could not be constructed. It points out that petitioners' own
witness, Engineer Evelyn Cayat (Engineer Cayat) of the City Planning and
Development Office, testified that SM City Baguio satisfied the zoning
requirements. 82

Private respondent SM Investments Corporation also disputes

petitioners' allegation that the Expansion Project is "a regional mall with an /
75
Id. at 676-678.
76
Id. at 2724.
77
Id. at 2724.
78
Id. at 2718-2719.
79
Id. at 2712-2713.
80
Id. at 659-660.
81
Id. at 660-662.
82
Id. at 428.
Decision 16 G.R. No. 215988

aggregate of 11 [stories] with a 5-[ story] parking lot." 83 It stresses tha~

Engineer Oscar Flores, the city building official, testified that the mall
expansion has four (4) stories composed of split levels. 84

As for the different applicants in the original and amended

environmental compliance certificates, private respondent SM Investments
Corporation claims that private respondent SM Prime Holdings, Inc., the
applicant in the amended Environmental Compliance Certificate, only acted
as its attorney-in-fact. Additionally, it denies petitioners' claim that the
Expansion Project is a co-located project under the Revised Procedural
Manual for Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Administrative Order 2003-30.

Both private and public respondents posit that all of the pertinent
permits were issued regularly by the appropriate government officials. 85
They emphasize that the lower courts correctly invoked the presumption of
regularity in justifying the permits issued as they supported their conclusions
with evidence. 86

Finally, private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping

Center Management Corporation state that the Expansion Project will m L

cause irreparable damage to the environment and the residents of Baguio. 7

They, thus, move for the lifting of the Temporary Restraining Order. 88

The issues for this Court's resolution are:

First, whether or not the Petition should be dismissed for having a

defective verification and certification against forum shopping;

Second, whether or not the Petition should be dismissed for raising

questions of fact, which are not allowed in a petition for review under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court;

Third, whether or not the Petition should be dismissed for its failure to
observe the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies and the doctrine
of primary jurisdiction; and

Finally, whether or not the assailed permits issued in favor of privc:. ·p /J

respondents were validly and regularly issued. J"
83
Id. at 428.
84 Id.
85
Id. at 441 and 2723.
86
Id. at 441, 673-674. 2728-2729.
87
Id. at 678-679.
88
Id. at 676-678.
Decision 17 G.R. No. 215988

The Petition is partly meritorious.

In providing the formal requirements of an appeal by certiorari filed

under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Section 1 requires that a verified
petition raising only questions of law may be filed before this Court:

SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party

desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution
of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or
other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court
a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only
questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (Emphasis supplied)

The requirements for verification can be found in Section 4, Rule 7 of

the Rules of Civil Procedure:

SECTION 4. Verification. - Except when otherwise specifically

required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or
accompanied by affidavit.

A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the

pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his
knowledge and belief.

A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification

based on "information and belief," or upon "knowledge, information and
belief," or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned
pleading.

Rule 45, Section 4(e) further provides that the petition should "contain
a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last
paragraph of Section 2, Rule 42." Rule 42, Section 2 provides:

SECTION 2. Form and contents. - The petition shall be filed in

seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy intended for the court
being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full names
of the parties to the case, without impleading the lower courts or judges

I
thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the specific
material dates showing that it was filed on time; (c) set forth concisely a
statement of the matters involved, the issues raised, the specification of
errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly committed by the Regional Trial
Court, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the
appeal; (d) be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true
copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified
correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite
 Decision 18 G.R. No. 215988

number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material
portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition.

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a

cert~fication
under oath that he has not theretofore commenced any other
action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals or different divisions thereof: or any other tribunal or agency; if
there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the
same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding
has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he
undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or
agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom. (Emphasis supplied)

Finally, Rule 45, Section 589 sets forth that the petitioner's failure to
comply with any of the enumerated formal requirements is sufficient ground
for the petition's dismissal.

Private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center

Management Corporation assert that the Petition should be dismissed
outright for its defective Verification and Certification Against Forum
Shopping. 90 It points out that of the 202 or so claimed petitioners, only 30
actually signed the document. Further, two (2) of the 30 signatories we1,,
not even plaintiffs in either the first or second environmental case before the
Regional Trial Court. 91

Private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center

Management Corporation are mistaken.

This Court, as emphasized in Altres v. Empleo, 92 has consistently

applied the substantial compliance rule when it comes to a supposedly
defective verification and certification against forum shopping attached to a
petition. Altres, citing Tan v. Ballena, 93 mentioned that the purpose of a
verification was to assure this Court that a petition contains allegations that
are true, and that it was filed in good faith. Thus, the signing of the
verification by some petitioners already served the purpose contemplated by
the verification. 94 However, when it comes to the certification against forum

89
RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 5 provides:
SECTION 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. -The failure of the petitioner to comply with any
/
of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for
costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany
the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
The Supreme Court may on its own initiative deny the petition on the ground that the appeal is
without merit, or is prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised therein are 1 JJ
unsubstantial to require consideration.
90
Rollo, pp. 647-650.
91
Id. at 649.
92
594 Phil 246, 257-258 (2008) [Per J. Carpio Morales, En Banc].
93
579 Phil. 503 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
94
Altres v. Empleo. 594 Phil 246, 258-260 (2008) [Per J. Carpio Morales, En Banc].
Decision 19 G.R. No. 215988

shopping, Altres ruled that the non-signing petitioners shall be dropped from
the petition:

In the present case, the signing of the verification by only 11 out of

the 59 petitioners already sufficiently assures the Court that the allegations
in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination
or a matter of speculation; that the pleading is filed in good faith; and that
the signatories are unquestionably real parties-in-interest who undoubtedly
have sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the
allegations in the petition.

With respect to petitioners' certification against forum shopping,

the failure of the other petitioners to sign as they could no longer be
contacted or are no longer interested in pursuing the case need not merit
the outright dismissal of the petition without defeating the administration
of justice. The non-signing petitioners are, however, dropped as
parties to the case. 95 (Emphasis in the original)

Altres then provided guidelines, as culled from jurisprudence, on how

to resolve noncompliance with the requirement and defective submissions of
verification and certification against forum shopping:

For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule
form the jurisprudential pronouncements already reflected above
respecting non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of
defective, verification and certification against forum shopping:

1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the

requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non-
compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective
certification against forum shopping.

2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein

does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court
may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the
attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule
may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served
thereby.

3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one

who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the
complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged
in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.

4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance

therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not
curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there
is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance"
f
or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons".

95
Id. at 260.
Decision 20 G.R. No. 215988

5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all

the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign
will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable
circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a
common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the
signature of only one of them in the certification against forum
shopping substantially complies with the Rule.

6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be

executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for
reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he
must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of
record to sign on his behalf. 96 (Citations omitted)

Here, there were around 200 petitioners in the two (2) environmental
cases on appeal before this Court; yet, only 30 petitioners signed the
Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping.

However, contrary to private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc.

and Shopping Center Management Corporation's assertions, the failure of all
petitioners to sign the document is not a sufficient ground for the Petition's
outright dismissal. Jurisprudence confirms that petitioners substantially
complied with the verification requirement. The 30 signatories provided the
guarantee that: ( 1) they had ample knowledge as to the truth of the
allegations in the Petition; and (2) the Petition was made in good faith.

For the certification against forum shopping, Altres stated the general
rule that non-signing petitioners will be dropped as parties to the case.
Nonetheless, there is an exception: when all petitioners share a commc :
interest, the signature of one (1) petitioner in the certification against forum
shopping is enough to satisfy the substantial compliance rule. 97

Here, petitioners all share a common interest, which is to declare the

cutting or earth-balling of the trees affected by the Expansion Project illegal.
Hence, the signature of 30 petitioners to the certification against forum
shopping amounts to substantial compliance with the requirement under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

II

It is well-established that a review of appeals filed before this Comi is

"not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion[.]" The Rules of98
f
Court requires that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed

96
Id. at 261-262.
97
Id. at 262.
98
RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 6.
Decision 21 G.R. No. 215988

under Rule 45, 99 as factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal
by certiorari. It is not this Court's function to weigh all over again evidence
that were already considered in the lower courts. 100

However, these rules do admit of 10 exceptions, as listed in Medina v.

Mayor Asistio, Jr.: 101

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation,

surmises or conjectures ... ; (2) When the inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible ... ; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of
discretion ... ; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
facts ... ; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting ... ; (6) When the
Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the
case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
appellee ... ; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those
of the trial court ... ; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based ... ; (9) When the
facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply
briefs are not disputed by the respondents ... ; and (10) The finding of fact
of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence
and is contradicted by the evidence on record .... 102 (Citations omitted)

Pascual v. Burgos 103 instructs that parties must prove with convincing
evidence that their case clearly falls under the exceptions to the rule:

Parties praying that this court review the factual findings of the Court of
Appeals must demonstrate and prove that the case clearly falls under the
exceptions to the rule. They have the burden of proving to this court that a
review of the factual findings is necessary. Mere assertion and claim that
the case falls under the exceptions do not suffice. 104

Here, petitioners claim that the issuance of a zoning clearance was

tainted with irregularity, maintaining that a regional mall like SM City
Baguio and its Expansion Project should not have been allowed in a low-
density commercial zone like Luneta Hill. Rather, the mall belonged in a
high-density commercial zone, while the parking building belonged in a
medium-density commercial zone. 105

Furthermore, petitioners stress that private respondents were not

authorized to cut and earth-ball the trees as they failed to obtain a separate
I
99
RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. I.
100
Quintas v. Nicolas, 736 Phil. 438, 451 (2014) [Per J. Velasco, Third Division].
101
269 Phil. 225 (1990) [Per J. Bidin, Third Division].
102
Id. at 232.
103
776 Phil. 167 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
104
Id. at 184.
105
Rollo, pp. 3191-3195.
Decision 22 G.R. No. 215988

environmental compliance certificate or conduct an environmental impact

assessment before felling the trees. 106

Upon careful review, this Court finds that this case falls under the
exceptions in Medina, particularly: "( 4) [w ]hen the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts"; 107 and "(8) [w]hen the findings of fact are
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are
based [. ]" 108

III

Petitioners assert that since they were never made parties to the
application for the amended Environmental Compliance Ce1iificate, they are
not bound by the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. Both
private 109 and public respondents 110 claim otherwise.

Respondents are mistaken.

The general rule is to first exhaust the available administrative

remedies before a party can bring the case to a court for judicial review. 111
In connection with the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Under this doctrine, courts will hold off
from determining a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction
of an administrative agency, particularly when its resolution demands the
"special knowledge, experience[,] and services of the administrative tribunal
to determine technical and intricate matters of fact." 112

However, Pagara v. Court of Appeals' 13 emphasized that the rule r"

exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It may be
disregarded when any of the following exceptions are present:

It is not applicable (1) where the question in dispute is purely a legal one,
or (2) where the controverted act is patently illegal or was performed
without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction; or (3) where the
respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as an alter ego of the
President bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter, unless
actually disapproved by him, or (4) where there are circumstances
indicating the urgency of judicial intervention .... /
106
Id. at 3228-3230.
107 Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr., 269 Phil. 225, 232 (1990) [Per J. Bidinm Third Division].
108 Id.
109
Rollo, pp. 677-678, SM Prime Holding's Comment.
110
Id. at 2725-2728, Public respondent's Comment
111
Republic v. Lacap, 546 Phil. 87, 96-97 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division].
112
Id. at 97.
113
325 Phil. 66 (1996) [Per J. Vitug, First Division].
Decision 23 G.R. No. 215988

Said principle may also be disregarded when it does not provide a

plain, speedy and adequate remedy, ... when there is no due process
observed ... or where the protestant has no other recourse .... 114

Article II, Section 6 of Department of Environment and Natural

Resources Administrative Order No. 2003-30 provides:

Section 6. Appeal. -

Any party aggrieved by the final decision on the [Environmental

Compliance Certificate]/[Certificate of Non-Coverage] applications may,
within 15 days from receipt of such decision, file an appeal on the
following grounds:

a. Grave abuse of discretion on the part of the deciding authority, or

b. Serious errors in the review findings.

The [Department of Environment and Natural Resources] may

adopt alternative conflict/dispute resolution procedures as a means to
settle grievances between proponents and aggrieved parties to avert
unnecessary legal action. Frivolous appeals shall not be countenanced.

The proponent or any stakeholder may file an appeal to the following:

Deciding Authority Where to file the appeal

EMB Regional Office Office of the EMB Director
Director
EMB Central Office Office of the DENR
Secretary
DENR Secretary Office of the President 115

The first sentence of Section 6 shows that the remedy of appeal is

only available to a party that applied for an environmental compliance
certificate or certificate of non-coverage. This is bolstered by the period
provided for the filing of an appeal-within 15 days from receipt of such
decision-since only a party to the application is entitled to receive it.
However, as respondents posit, stakeholders are not precluded from filing an
appeal as stated in Section 6's last sentence.

This apparent contradiction was clarified in Boracay Foundation, Inc.,

where this Court ruled that an appeal under Section 6 only applies to a party
to the proceedings before the appropriate agency:

As petitioner correctly pointed out, the appeal provided for under

Section 6 of DENR DAO 2003-30 is only applicable, based on the first
I
sentence thereof, if the person or entity charged with the duty to exhaust

114
Id. at 81 (1996) [Per J. Vitug, First Division].
115
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Administrative Order No. 2003-30 (2003),
<http://policy.denr.gov.ph/2003/dao2003-30.pdf> (last accessed on March 30, 2017).
Decision 24 G.R. No. 215988

the administrative remedy of appeal to the appropriate government agency

has been a party or has been made a party in the proceedings wherein the
decision to be appealed was rendered. 116

It is not disputed that petitioners were never a party to the application

of environmental compliance certificates, both the original and amended, for
the Expansion Project. Hence, they were never furnished a copy of the
Decision on the Environmental Compliance Certificate, which would trigger
the start of the 15-day appeal period provided for under Section 6.

IV

Petitioners insist that the SM Pines Resort Project and the Expansion
Project did not comply with Baguio City's zoning ordinance, contending that
they should have been constructed in a C-3 or high-density commerci . iJ
zone, not in a C-1 or a low-density commercial zone where it currently is. 117

Petitioners are mistaken.

Ordinance No. 51, series of 2001, or the Comprehensive Zoning

Ordinance for the City of Baguio 118 (Zoning Ordinance) is intended to
"[g]uide, control, and regulate further growth and development of Baguio
City in accordance with its Comprehensive Land Use Plan" 119 by providing
separate zones for effective and orderly use of land by Baguio residents and
visitors alike. It reads:

SECTION 5. DIVISION INTO ZONES OR DISTRICTS. To

effectively carry out the provisions of this Ordinance, the City is hereby
divided into the following land use zones:

1. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R-1)

2. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R-2)
3. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R-3)
4. SOCIALIZED HOUSING ZONE (SHZ)
5. LOW DENSITY COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-1)
6. MEDIUM DENSITY COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-2)
7. HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-3)
8. GENERAL INSTITUTIONAL ZONE
9. PARKS AND RECREATION ZONE
10. WATER ZONE
11. OTHER ZONES
11.1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
11.1.1. EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE
11.1.2. SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE f
116
689 Phil. 218, 270 (2012) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, En Banc].
117
Rollo, pp. 33-37.
118
Id. at 236-250.
119
Id. at 236.
 Decision 25 G.R. No. 215988

11.2. UTILITIES ZONE

11.3. CEMETERIES/MEMORIAL PARKS
ZONE
11.4. AIRPORT ZONE
11.5. FOREST ZONE
11.5.1. WATERSHED ZONE
11.5.2. PROTECTED FOREST ZONE
11.5.3. OPEN AREAS
11.6. ROADS ZONE
11.7. SLAUGHTERHOUSE ZONE 120 (Emphasis
in the original)

Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance provides for the use of commercial

zones:

SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS. The following zones

shall be principally used as follows:

5. Low Density Commercial Zone (C-1). A C-1 shall principally

be for trade, services and business activities ordinarily referred to
as the Central Business District (CBD).
6. Medium Density Commercial Zone (C-2). A C-2 shall be for
quasi-trade business activities and service industries performing
complementary/supplementary functions to the CBD.
7. High Density Commercial Zone (C-3). A C-3 shall be for
regional shopping centers which are regional in scope or where
market activities generate traffic and require utilities and services
that extend beyond local boundaries and requires metropolitan
level development planning and implementation. 121 (Emphasis in
the original)

The permitted uses for the three (3) types of commercial zones are
found in Section 10:

SECTION 10. PERMITTED USES. The uses indicated below

are not exhaustive nor all-inclusive. The Local Zoning Board of
Adjustment and Appeals (LZBAA) shall, subject to the requirements of
this Section, allow other uses not enumerated hereunder provided that they
are compatible with the uses expressly allowed. Allowance of further uses
shall be based on the intrinsic qualities of the land and the socio-economic
potential of the area with due regard to the maintenance of the essential
qualities of the zone.

Specific uses/activities of lesser density within a particular zone

(R-1) may be allowed within the zone of higher density (R-2, R-3) but not
vice-versa, nor in another zone and its subdivisions except for uses
f
120
Id. at 237.
21
1 Id. at 238.
Decision 26 G.R. No. 215988

expressly allowed in said zones, such that the cumulative effect of zoning
shall be intra-zonal and not inter-zonal.

The following are permitted in the following zones:

E. Low Density Commercial Zone (C-1)

1. Offices like office building and office condominium

2. General Retail Stores and Shops like:
a. department store
b. bookstore and office supply shop
c. home appliance store
d. carshop
e. photo shop
f. flower shop
3. Food Markets and Shops like:
a. bakery and bake shop
b. wine store
c. grocery
d. supermarket
4. Personal Service Shops, like:
a. beauty parlor
b. barber shop
c. sauna bath and massage clinic
d. cabaret
e. bar
f. dressmaking and tailoring shop
5. Recreational Center/ Establishments like:
a. moviehouses/theater
b. play court e.g. tennis court, bowling lane, billiard hall
c. swimming pool
d. day and night club
e. stadium, coliseum, gymnasium
f. other sports and recreational establishment
6. Restaurant and other eateries
7. Short term special education like:
a. dancing schools
b. school for self-defense
c. driving schools
d. speech clinics
8. Storerooms but only as may be necessary for the efficient
conduct of the business
9. Commercial condominium (with residential units in upper
floors)
10. Commercial housing like:
a. hotel
b. apartment
c. apartel
d. boarding house
e. dormitory
f. pension house
J
g. club house
h. motel
11. Embassy/consulate
Decision 27 G.R. No. 215988

12. Library/museum
13. filling and service stations
14. clinic
15. vocational/ technical school
16. convention center and related facilities
17. messengerial services
18. security agency
19. janitorial service
20. bank and other financial institution including money shop
21. radio and television station
22. building garage
23. commercial job printing
24. typing and photo engraving services
25. repair of optical instruments & equipments and cameras
26. repair of clocks and watches
27. manufacture of ensignia, (sic) badges and similar emblems
except metals
28. transportation terminal/garages
29. plant nurseries
30. scientific, cultural and academic centers and research
facilities except nuclear, radioactive, chemical and
biological warfare facilities.

F. Medium Density Commercial Zone (C-2)

1. All uses allowed in C-1

2. Repair shops like:
a. house appliances
b. motor vehicles and accessories
c. home furnishing shops
3. transportation terminal/garage with repair
4. publishing
5. medium scale junk shop
6. machinery display shop/center
7. gravel and sand
8. lumber/hardware
9. manufacture of ice, ice blocks, cubes, tubes, crush except
dry ice
10. manufacture of signs and advertising displays
11. chicharon factory
12. welding shops
13. machine shop service operations (repairing, rebuilding or
customer job orders)
14. repair of motorcycles
15. lechon or whole pig roasting
16. biscuit factory
17. doughnut and hopia factory
18. other bakery products not elsewhere classified
19. repacking of food products
20. funeral parlors, mortuaries, and crematory services and
memorial chapels
21. parking lots, garage facilities
22. Soda Fountain

G. High Density Commercial Zone (C-3)

f
Decision 28 G.R. No. 215988

1. All uses allowed in C-1 and C-2

2. regional shopping centers, e.g. large malls
3. high rise hotels
4. spo1is stadium or sports complexes 122 (Emphasis in the
original)

The Zoning Ordinance further established the boundaries of th ~

commercial zones:

SECTION 11. ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. The

zoning district boundaries for the City of Baguio as reflected in the official
zoning map are specified in Appendix "B" and described as follows:

COMMERCIAL (CJ)

• Lot deep along Bokawkan Road

• Market Area including Magsaysay A venue
• Session Road; Rizal Monument Barangay; AZCKO Barangay
• Malcolm Square; Kabayanihan; Kagitingan Barangay
• Upper and Lower Gen. Luna Road
• Right side of Bonifacio Street near St. Louis University
• T. Alonzo; New Lucban Barangay; Tabora Barangay
• Lot deep along M. Roxas St., Trancoville
• Kisad Legarda including Concorde and Europa Condominium
• Monticello Hotel at Camp 7 Barangay
• Along Siapno and Ambuclao Road near Pacdal Circle (Existing
Satellite Market)

COMMERCIAL (C2)

• From Junction Yandoc St. to Naguilian Road up to City

Cemetery
• Part of Lourdes Subdivision and San Roque
• Along left side of M. Ponce St., Quezon Hill Proper Barangay
• One lot deep along left side of Trinidad Road
• Portion of Happy Homes Old Luc ban Barangay
• Marcos Highway (from Junction North Sto. Tomas Road to
Junction Balacbac Road)
• Part of Atab Road near Tuba Municipality
• One lot deep along Kennon Road Camp 7 (near Camp 7
Satellite Market)

COMMERCIAL (C3)

• Portion of Irisan along Km. 4

• Baguio Country Club 123 (Emphasis in the original) ,f
122
Id. at 239-24 I.
123
Id. at 243.
Decision 29 G.R. No. 215988

Zoning ordinances are integral to urban planning. Their pnmary

purpose is to regulate land use to ensure the general welfare of the
community. By creating distinct zones and ensuring strict compliance, the
local government can control the growth and development of its territory,
optimizing its potential without sacrificing the safety and comfort of its
constituents.

Executive Order No. 72, Series of 1993 (Providing for the Preparation
and Implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plans of Local
Government Units Pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991 and
other Pertinent Laws) devolved the power of the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board to issue permits and locational clearances for local
projects to cities and municipalities with approved comprehensive land use
plans. 124

The Planning and Development Office of Baguio City was tasked

with the preparation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan 125 and its
implementation based on the Zoning Ordinance. 126 It performs the
discretionary act of issuing a zoning compliance certification or a locational
clearance based on its interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. 127

Here, Engineer Cayat, the officer-in-charge of the Planning and

Development Office of Baguio City, testified that a zoning clearance was
issued to the SM Pines Resort Project on Luneta Hill as it conformed to both
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. 128 She
testified:

[Court]: Which means that it conforms to all the requirements of your

Office?
[Engr. Cayat]: Yes, Your Honor.

124
Executive Order No. 72 (1993), sec. 3 provides:
SECTION 3. Plan implementation. - (a) The authority of the HLRB to issue locational
clearances for locally-significant projects is hereby devolved to cities and municipalities with
/
comprehensive land use plans reviewed and approved in accordance with this Order. Such cities and
municipalities shall likewise be responsible for the institution of other actions in the enforcement of the
provisions thereof. For this purpose, they may call on the HLRB and such other NGAs for any legal
and technical assistance.
Based on established national standards and priorities, the HLRB shall continue to issue locational
clearances for projects considered to be of vital and national or regional economic or environmental
significance. Unless otherwise declared by the NEDA Board, all projects shall be presumed locally-
significant.
b) All fees and other charges previously collected by the HLRB for the issuance of locational
clearances shall now accrue entirely to the city or municipality concerned.
(c) Within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Order, the HLRB shall design and install an
information system to monitor -
(I) changes in the actual use of land resources; and
(2) the implementation of comprehensive land use plans by LGUs with a view to ensuring
compliance with national policies, standards, and guidelines.
125
Rollo p. 536.
126
Id. at 529-531.
127
Id. at 537-539.
12s Id.
 Decision 30 G.R. No. 215988

Q: That is why the clearance was issued?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

Atty. Bognedon:

Q: Madam Witness, what are the requirements complied with?

A: As to the location, sir, we checked it in terms of evaluating if the
proposed activity falls within the allowed zone.

Q: And in which zone does the proposed project located? (sic)

A: Commercial, C-1 zone, sir.

Court:

Q: The application is pursuant to C-1?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

Court:
What is the question[?]

Atty. Bognedon:

Q: Madam Witness, what are the, aside from a C-1 commercial zone, what
are the other classifications of commercial zones, ifthere are there? (sic)
A: We have commercial C-1, which identified allowed uses, as reflected in
our ordinance. We also have commercial C-2, where it will already allow
repair shops, transportation, publishing, junk shops, etc. That is for
commercial C-2. And for C-3, this is already for regional shopping
centers, high rise hotels, sports stadium and sports complex.

Court:
I have a question.

Q: Why was it that the application was made pursuant to C-1, when you
said that C-3 is for high rise and commercial buildings?
A: C-1 is likewise for commercial, Your Honor. And for C-3, high density
residential (sic) zone, may I read the general provision, Your Honor[?] "A
C-3 shall be for a regional shopping center, which are in regional scope, or
where market activities generate traffic, and require utilities and services
that exten[d] beyond local boundaries and requires metropolitan level
development planning and implementation." 129

Petitioners failed to support their allegation that the issued locational

clearances were improperly issued.

Besides, if petitioners wanted to challenge the locational clearance

issued by the Planning and Development Office of Baguio City, they should
have filed an appeal before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.
I
129
Id. at 539-541, Testimony of Engineer Evelyn Cayat.
Decision 31 G.R. No. 215988

While Executive Order No. 72 may have devolved the agency's power to
issue locational clearances to cities and municipalities, it did not remove its
appellate jurisdiction over actions of local and regional planning and zoning
bodies. Iloilo City Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals v. Gegato-
Abecia Funeral Homes, Inc. 130 explained:

Clearly therefore, what were devolved to local government units

were only the powers and responsibilities specifically stated in Section 1
of E.O. No. 71, as well the authority of the HLURB to issue locational
clearance for locally significant projects as provided in Section 3 of E.O.
No. 72. The power to act as appellate body over decisions and actions of
local and regional planning and zoning bodies and deputized official of the
board was retained by the HLURB and remained unaffected by the
devolution under the Local Government Code.

Moreover, the fact that the Rules of Procedure of the HLURB does
not categorically provide for a procedure on the remedy of appeal from
decisions of local government units will not operate to divest the HLURB
of the appellate jurisdiction specifically granted to it by law. It must be
stressed that no rule or regulation may alter, amend, or contravene a
provision of law. Implementing rules should conform, not clash, with the
law that they implement. 131 (Citations omitted)

As the agency mandated with establishing standards and guidelines

for land use plans and zoning ordinances, the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board has the necessary knowledge and expertise to pass
judgment upon questions within its sphere of expertise. 132 Questions on
which zone the SM Pines Resort Project and Expansion Project correctly
belonged in, and whether their locational clearances were validly issued,
should have been raised before the agency.

Private respondents do not deny that they did not apply for a new
environmental compliance certificate prior to cutting or earth-balling the
affected trees. Nonetheless, they argue that a separate environmental
compliance certificate was not needed because their amended Environmental
Compliance Certificate already covered the planned tree-cutting and earth-
balling. What was required, they claim, was a tree-cutting and/or earth-
balling permit, which they secured prior to the operations. 133

Private respondents are mistaken.

130
131
462 Phil 803 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
f
Id. at 817-818.
132
Jloi/o City Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals v. Gegato-Abecia Funeral Homes Inc., 462 Phil.
803, 8 I 8 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
133
Rollo, p. 3079.
Decision 32 G.R. No. 215988

In the Environmental Impact Statement, 134 submitted to support

private respondents' application for an environmental compliance certificate
for the SM Pines Resort Project, the project's construction phase saw the
removal "of about 112 trees or 16.54% of the total number of major trees" 135
from the proposed building site. Private respondents admitted that the
removal of these trees will have "[m]edium, negative[,] and long term" 136
impact and proposed the following mitigation measures:

The proposed structures will be located in the central area of the property
where tree density is lower.

The building sites and shapes have been laid out and adjusted to minimize
the requirement to remove mature trees. If it is possible to relocate smaller
trees in a practical manner with a reasonable degree of success, they will
be relocated. Trees that need to be removed will be cut in accordance with
City and DENR regulations. Each tree cut will be replaced with at least 10
seedlings. Location for seedling planting will be coordinated with the
Baguio Regreening Movement and the City Government and DENR.

Enhancement of vegetation around the building through landscaping.

Trees can be planted around the buildings to replace the cut trees and to
fill in gaps. Ornamental plants can also be planted in the gardens to
augment existing ones. The landscaping will therefore enhance the
existing vegetation and bring the customers closer to nature. 137

On September 13, 2001, the Regional Executive Director of the

Depaiiment of Environment and Natural Resources-Cordillera
Administrative Region granted private respondents' application and issued
Environmental Compliance Ce1iificate CARO 106-047-120, 138 which
contained several conditions for the removal of the 112 trees, including:

12. All trees to be affected by the project shall be disposed off (sic) in
accordance with existing Forestry Laws, Rules and Regulations. A
replacement of at least 25 saplings for every tree cut shall be
undertaken by the proponent. Tree planting should be done within the
project site to maintain the ecological balance of the area. Planting
site(s) outside the SM Property, in coordination with the concerned
govermnent agencies/units, shall be covered by a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) to be submitted to EMB, DENR-CAR by the
proponent within sixty (60) days upon receipt of this certificate and
prior to start of development[.] 139

134
Id. at 1333-1696.
??
135
Id. at 1505-1506.
13(>
Id. at 1506.
137
Id. at 1505-1506.
138
Id. at 1719-1722.
]Jl)
Id. at 1720.
Decision 33 G.R. No. 215988

In November 2003, construction of SM City Baguio, located within

the SM Pines Resort complex, was completed. A few years later, it
expanded its existing mall on Luneta Hill to increase parking and
commercial spaces. 140

On April 5, 2011, 141 in relation to the application for an amended

environmental compliance certificate, the Environmental Management
Bureau-Cordillera Administrative Region requested additional information
on the trees that would be affected by the Expansion Project, particularly:

Inventory report on affected trees. The report should include at least a

description of the affected trees in terms of number; species; diameter
sizes; and, nature as to whether the same were planted or naturally grown.
Said report will also serve as material reference and guidance document
vis-a-vis the implications of Executive Order No. 23 (Declaring a
Moratorium on the Cutting and Harvesting of Timber in the Natural
Residual Forest and Creating the Anti-Illegal Logging Task Force) issued
by the President of the Philippines. 142

Private respondent SM Investments Corporation complied by

submitting a revised Environmental Performance Report and Management
Plan. 143 However, while the document contained a detailed inventory 144 of
the trees that would be affected by the Expansion Project, it did not provide
relevant information as to whether the trees were planted or naturally grown.

The missing information is crucial to determine if the affected trees

were part of a natural and residual forest, which means it was "composed of
indigenous trees, not planted by man[,]" 145 putting them under the coverage
of Executive Order No. 23, series of2011. 146

Recognizing the State's role in preserving the remaining forest cover

areas, then President Benigno S. Aquino III, through Executive Secretary
Paquito N. Ochoa, issued on February 1, 2011 Executive Order No. 23, 147
which declared a moratorium on the cutting of timber in natural and residual
forests for any purpose.

140
141
142
Id. at 713.
Id. at I 826.
Id. at I 826.
f
143
Id.at704-1316.
144
Id. at 778-782.
145
Executive Order No. 23 (20 I I), sec. I (I .2).
146
Declaring a Moratorium on the Cutting and Harvesting of Timber in the Natural and Residual Forests
and Creating the Anti-Illegal Logging Task Force.
147
Executive Order No. 23 (2011)
<http://forestry.denr.gov.ph/images/policies/201 I/eo/executive_order_no._23_692.pdf> (last accessed
on March 25, 2019).
Decision 34 G.R. No. 215988

Despite private respondents' failure or omission to indicate the nature

of the affected trees, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
on September 22, 2011 148 granted their request to amend Environmental
Compliance Certificate CARO 106-04 7-120 "for the development of
additional parking levels, retail shops[,] and restaurants within the open
space fronting the Governor Pack Road." 149

In an October 17, 2011 Memorandum, 150 public respondent Paje

directed the Regional Executive Director to issue a tree-cutting and earth-
balling permit with the issuance subject to the following conditions:

1. The permittee shall endeavor to conduct meetings or public

consultations with LGUs, NGOs, and other stakeholders in the area to
discuss the importance of the project, replacement of trees to be
harvested, environment and social issues and other related concerns for
their information;
2. The permittee shall secure an Environmental Compliance Cert~ficate
before the staii of any tree cutting and earth-balling operations;
3. Only the forty three (43) planted Alnus trees with a total volume [of]
4.96 cubic meters shall be allowed to be cut. The ninety seven (97)
naturally grown Benguet Pine trees including the forty two (42)
saplings of Benguet Pine and Alnus trees shall be earth[-]balled;
4. The trees to be earth-balled shall be transplanted to an adjacent open
area within the SM City Baguio vicinity or within the area identified
jointly by the DENR and the permittee free from future development
of the area;
5. Each tree to be cut and trees damaged during earth-balling operations
shall be replaced with 30 saplings preferably of indigenous species and
shall be planted by the permittee within the area identified jointly by
the DENR and the permittee free from future development;
6. Prior to tree cutting and earth-balling operations, placards or
signboards with dimension of 4 feet by 4 feet should be installed at
conspicuous places to inform the public that the tree cutting and earth-
balling operations are authorized by the DENR. Such notice of
particulars should indicate the name of the permittee, the purpose of
the activities to be undertaken and the number of trees to be cut and
earth-balled;
7. The tree cutting and eaiih-balling operation shall at all times be under
the direct supervision of the Regional Executive Director, DENR,
CAR or his duly authorized representative(s);
8. The logs and other wood materials derived from the cut trees shall be
turned over to the DENR for proper disposal;
9. The permittee shall be required to undertake measures during and atter
tree cutting and earth-balling operations to mitigate the negative
impacts of the said activity to the locality; and
10. The Tree Cutting and Earth-balling Permit shall have a duration of one ;J
(1) year. 151 (Emphasis supplied) ,f

148
Rollo, p. 288.
149
Id.
150
Id. at 289-290.
151
Id. at 289-290.
Decision 35 G.R. No. 215988

The clear wording of this Memorandum belies private respondents'

assertion that no separate environmental compliance certificate was needed
prior to the tree removal and transplanting operations.

The necessity of a separate environmental compliance certificate is

evident as the original Environmental Compliance Certificate only
contemplated the removal of 112 trees for the entire SM Pines Resort
Project. Meanwhile, the amended Environmental Compliance Certificate
issued for the Expansion Project considered the environmental impact of the
"additional parking levels, retail shops[,] and restaurants; and construction of
a new 1,200 m3 /day capacity Sewage Treatment Plant" 152 but did not
account for removing an additional 182 Benguet pine and Alnus trees.

Notably, the plan on the affected trees in the revised Environmental

Performance Report and Management Plan, in support of the application for
an amended environmental compliance certificate, seemed to be a mere
afterthought, as shown by the lack of a solid strategy in place:

H. Impact on Ecological Environment

There are a number of trees and plants of significant value that will be
affected by the construction of the proposed project. The designer is
considering the replanting of these trees to the open areas of the site as part
of the project landscaping. Maximum effort shall be made to save existing
vegetation especially those with economic and ecological importance.
Careful balling out of the roots and relocating the fruit bearing and
premium trees into a suitable pre-identified relocation site is recommended
in order to preserve these species. Site landscaping shall consist
predominantly of providing suitably shaped final ground surfaces and the
establishment of grass and trees.

Tree planting and vegetation growth on the peripheral boundary will be

done to improve the ecological environment. These strips of vegetation
will also serve as buffer zones. Cutting of trees shall be avoided as much
as possible.

Dust generated during construction stage may affect the nearby vegetation
temporarily. Dust that usually settles on leaf surface results in the
blocking of stomates. The stomates are pores in the epidermis of leaves.
They are channels of gas exchange which is important for the
physiological processes. If dust will be left uncontrolled during
construction stage, it may result to the blocking of stomates and eventually
to the disruption [of] normal physiological processes of the plants.

In line with the project's principal objective to be environmentally

responsive, all activities from construction to implementation should
prioritize preservation and improvement on all aspects of the existing
natural environment particularly trees, vegetation and other landscape //
features. ,

152
Id. at 288.
Decision 36 G.R. No. 215988

Good vegetation practices and sound soil management programs shall be

observed whenever practicable. Therefore, only when it is absolutely
necessary shall vegetated land be cleared. 153

Hence, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

required private respondents to obtain a separate environmental compliance
certificate for the cutting or earth-balling of the affected Benguet pine and
Alnus trees. This was to ascertain that the removal or replanting of the trees
would not lead to a significant negative environmental impact.

While this Court acknowledges and lauds private respondents'

efforts 154 to plant a considerable amount of pine seedlings in and around
Baguio City, it cannot make up for the removal or replanting of the trees
affected by the Expansion Project, which was patently illegal.

It does not escape this Court's attention that both the Regional Trial
Court and the Comi of Appeals missed private respondents' application for
the cutting of 182 trees-in addition to 112 already allowed in the earlier
Environmental Compliance Certificate-merely through an amended
Environmental Compliance Certificate and almost nine (9) years after tL-;
original had been used. This Court also notes the lower court's nonchalant
attitude when it failed to notice the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources failure to distinguish indigenous long-standing pine trees fror .
those recently planted when it issued the amended Environmentc. l
Compliance Certificate despite the existence of Executive Order No. 23.

This Court has, time and again, considered that the words in Article
11, Section 16 of the Constitution are not mere shibboleths:

SECTION 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony of nature.

While the provision does not contain a specific act required by the
State, it certainly mandates the sensitivity of both the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and our courts to acquire a standpoint
that is protective of our ecology. Shmicuts into the process through which
the State assures minimal impact on the environment, weighed against the
profits to be generated by businesses, must not be tolerated.

This Court is witness to the transformation of Baguio City. There h~ d

been a time, in the distant past, when the smell of pine trees and fresh air, /

151
Id.at813.
154
Id.at 1895-1907.
Decision 37 G.R. No. 215988

which could only have been brought by a natural environment, greeted us in

our youth. Yet, we have seen over the years the steady creep of steel and
cement and the disappearance of many age-old pine trees, which may have
witnessed the very history of both the Ibaloi, who occupied the grounds of
Kafagway, and the political dynamics of the early settlers of the City of
Pines.

Commerce is important for human survival, but so is ecology.

In addition to upholding what the law contains, let this Decision

affirm our human stewardship of the planet. We belong to the land, its
waters, and its forests. Protection of the environment on behalf of our
present and future communities is progress. During our watch, we will be
on constant guard not only on what is done beyond the law, but also against
the hastened demise of the natural endowments entrusted to us.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The

March 24, 2015 Temporary Restraining Order, amended on April 19, 2016,
is made PERMANENT without prejudice to the filing of an application for
a new environmental compliance certificate. This is in compliance with the
conditions in the October 17, 2011 Memorandum, as well as Executive
Order No. 23, other applicable laws, regulations, and requirements.

SO ORDERED.
,

/ Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Decision 38 G.R. No. 215t,i88

On wellness leave On leave

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO M. PERLAS-BERNABr
Associate Justice

No part and on wellness leave

FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
Associate Justice

ANDR~~REYES, JR.
Assoc~~e[ustice

/.ZE~.~JR.
///

v~-41--~
RAMON PAULL. HERNANDO
- .,

Vs~ciate Justice Associate Justice

/I_ jJ <

AM ~~
A~sociate Justice

CERTIFICATION

I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the court.