J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2018-0005: MAYOR TOMAS R. OSMENA VS. JOEL CAPILI GARGANERA (G.R. NO. 231164, 20 MARCH 2018, TIJAM J.) (SUBJECT/S WRIT OF KALIKASAN; ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS)  (BRIEF TITLE: OSMENA VS GARGANERA)

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated December 15, 2016 and Resolution dated March 14, 2017 of the Court of Appeals, which granted the privilege of the writ of kalikasan and ordered petitioner Mayor Tomas R. Osmefia, in his capacity as City Mayor of Cebu and/or his representatives, to permanently cease and desist from dumping or disposing of garbage or solid waste at the Inayawan landfill and to continue to rehabilitate the same, are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“Moreover, the DOI-I Inspection Reporf;1 dated September 6, 20 J 6, observed that the Inayawan landfill had been in operation for l 7 years, which exceeded the 7-year estimated duration period in the projected design data. This caused the over pile-up of refuse/garbage in the perimeter and boarder of the landfill, having a height slope distance of approximately 120 meters at the side portion of Fil-Invest Subdivision, Cogon Pardo Side portion has approximately height of 40 meters and at Inayawan side portion is approximately from 10-20 meters from the original ground level. The standard process procedur7 management was poorly implemented.5~

As to the health impact, the DOH found that the residents, commercial centers, shanties and scavengers near the dump site are at high risk of acquiring different types of illness due to pollution, considering the current status of the dump site.53

The DOH highly recommended the immediate closure of the Inayawan sanitary landfill. lt was further stated that the disposal area is not anymore suitable as a sanitary landfill even if rehabilitated considering its location within the city, the number of residents and the increasing population of the city, the neighboring cities and towns, and the expected increase in number of commercial centers, transportation and tourist concerns.54

Prescinding from the above, the EMH, DOH, Mr. Amancio Dongcoy, a representative from the DENR-EMB, and the Cebu and Talisay residents are all in agreement as to the need of closing the Inayawan landfill due to the environmental violations committed by the City Government in its operation. The Court, while it have the jurisdiction and power to decide cases, is not precluded from utilizing the findings and recommendations of the administrative agency on questions that demand “the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the adminjstrative tribunal to determine technical and. intricate matters of fact. 55

Lastly, as much as this Court recognizes the parties’ good intention and sympathize with the dilemma of Mayor Osmefia or the City Government in looking for its final disposal site, considering the garbage daily dis1–1osal of 600 tons generated by the city and its duty to provide basic services and facilities of garbage collection and disposal system, we agree with the appellate court that the continued operation of the Inayawan landfill poses a serious and pressing danger to the environment that could result in injurious consequences to the health and lives of the nearby residents, thereby warranting the issuance of a writ of kalikasan.”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2018-0005-Mayor Tomas R. Osmeña Vs. Joel Capili Garganera 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2018-0043: LUIS JUAN L. VIRATA ET AL VS ALEJANDRO NG WEE ET AL (G.R. 220926, 27 MARCH 2018, VELASCO, JR. J.) AND RELATED CASES (G.R. 221058, 221109, 221135 AND  221218 )

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the following motions are hereby DENIED for lack of merit:

1. Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by Luis Juan L. Virata;
2. Motion for Reconsideration ofMariza Santos-Tan;
3. Motion for Reconsideration of Manuel Estrella;
4. Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Alejandro Ng Wee;
5. Motion for Reconsideration of Simeon Cua, Vicente Cualoping, and Henry Cualoping;
6. Motion for Reconsideration of Anthony T. Reyes; and
7. Motion for Reconsideration of Westmont Investment Corporation.

No further pleadings or motions will be entertained.

Let entry of judgment be issued.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“To emphasize, there were clear warning signs that Power Merge would not have been able to pay the almost P2.5 billion face value of its promissory notes. To Our mind, the Wincorp board of directors’ approval of the credit line agreement, notwithstanding these telltale signs and the above outlined circumstances, establishes the movant-directors’ liability to Ng Wee. For if these do not attest to their privity to Wincorp’s fraudulent scheme, they would, at the very least, convincingly prove that the movantdirectors are guilty of gross negligence in managing the company affairs. The movant-board directors should not have allowed the exclusion of Virata from the collection suit against Hottick knowing that he is a surety thereof. As revealed by their subsequent actions, this was not a mere error in judgment but a calculated maneuver to defraud its investors. Hence, the Court did not err when it ruled that Sec. 31 of the Corporation Code must be applied, and the separate juridical personality of Wincorp, pierced.

Moreover, the Court finds it highly suspect that the movant-directors, aside from Estrella, did not question why the case proceeded without the board chairman, John Anthony B. Espiritu (Espiritu). There were seventeen (17) named defendants in Civil Case No. 00-99006 with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39 in Manila, which included the entire composition of the Wincorp board of directors. If the movant-directors truly believed that they are on par with each other in terms of participation, then they should have instituted a cross-claim against Espiritu, or at least objected against his being dropped as a party defendant.”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2018-0043-LUIS JUAN L. VIRATA ET AL VS ALEJANDRO NG WEE ET AL

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2018-0042: IN RE: DECISION DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 IN OMB-M-A-10-023-A, ETC. AGAINST ATTY. ROBELITO* B. DIUYAN (02 APR 2018, DEL CASTILLO)  (BRIEF TITLE: IN RE DIUYAN)

DISPOSITIVE:

“THEREFORE, the Complaint against Respondent Diuyan ts DISMISSED for lack of ment.

SO ORDERED.”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 SCD-2017-0042-IN RE DECISION DATE SEPTEMBER 26 2012 IN OMB-M-A-10-023-A ETC. AGAINST ATTY. ROBELITO B. DIUYAN

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.