MMDA v Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (Environmental Law)

Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v Concerned Residents of Manila Bay

GR No. 171947-48 December 18, 2008
FACTS:
The complaint by the residents alleged that the water quality of the Manila
Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by law, specifically
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code and
that ALL defendants (public officials) must be jointly and/or solidarily liable and
collectively ordered to clean up Manila Bay and to restore its water quality to
class B, waters fit for swimming, diving, and other forms of contact recreation.
ISSUES:
(1) WON Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 under the headings, Upgrading of
Water Quality and Clean-up Operations, envisage a cleanup in general or
are they limited only to the cleanup of specific pollution incidents;
(2) WON petitioners be compel led by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the
Manila Bay.
APPLICABLE LAWS:
PD 1152 Philippine Environmental Code Section 17. Upgrading of Water
Quality. Where the quality of water has deteriorated t o a degree where
it s state will adversely affect its best u sage, the government agencies
concerned shall take such measures as may be necessary to upgrade
the quality of such water to meet the prescribed water quality standards.
Section 20. Clean-up Operations.It shall be the responsibility of the
polluter to contain , remove and clean - up water pollution incidents at his
own expense. In case of his failure to do so, the government agencies
concerned shall undertake containment, removal and clean-up operations and
expenses incurred in said operation shall be charged against the persons and/
or entities responsible for such pollution.
HELD:
(1) Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the government agencies
concerned ought to confine themselves to the containment, removal, and
cleaning operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. On the
contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a specific
pollution incident, as long as water quality has deteriorated to a degree
where its state will adversely affect its best usage. Section 17 & 20 are of
general application and are not for specific pollution incidents only. The fact that
the pollution of the Manila Bay is of such magnitude and scope that it is
well -nigh impossible to draw the line between a specific and a general
pollution incident.
(2) The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay Can be Compelled by
Mandamus. While the implementation of the MMDA's mandated tasks may
entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the very act
of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and
may be compelled by mandamus. Under what other judicial discipline
describes as continuing mandamus , the Court may, under extraordinary
circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its
decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference.
NOTE: This continuing mandamus is no longer applicable, since this is
institutionalized in the rules of procedure for environmental cases.

20 days Temporary restraining order

Ombudsman vs Galicia
GR 167711, Oct. 10, 2008
Respondent Ramon C. Galicia was a former public school teacher at M.B. Asistio,
Sr. High School (MBASHS) in Caloocan City. Based on the academic records that
he submitted forming part of his 201 file, Galicia graduated from the Far Eastern
University with a degree in civil engineering but failed to pass the board
examinations. He also represented himself to have earned eighteen (18) units in
education in school year (SY) 1985-1986, evidenced by a copy of a Transcript of
Records (TOR) from the Caloocan City Polytechnic College (CCPC). Likewise, he
passed the Teachers' Professional Board Examination (TPBE).
Yamsuan, then principal, proceeded to verify the authenticity of the said TOR.
Yamsuan was surprised to receive a reply from the College Registrar of CCPC
stating that they had no record of the said TOR. Acting on his findings, Yamsuan
lodged an affidavit-complaint for falsification, dishonesty, and grave misconduct
against Galicia before the Ombudsman.
Issue: As between the Ombudsman and DepEd Schools Superintendent, who has
the jurisdiction to investigate non-feasance and mal-feasance by public school
teachers?
Ruling: The court held that it is the School Superintendent and not the
Ombudsman that has jurisdiction over administrative cases against public school
teachers. However, in the case at bar, Galicia is estopped from belatedly
assailing the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. His right to due process was
satisfied when he participated fully in the investigation proceedings. He was able
to present evidence and arguments in his defense. The investigation conducted
by the Ombudsman was therefore valid.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR,

Petitioner,
versus EMMA ANNIE D. ARAFILES, Court Legal Researcher, Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC), Branch 48, Pasay City, Respondent.
A. M. No. 08-1-07-MeTC
The Leave Division of the Office of the Court Administrator submitted a Report of
Tardiness on December 6, 2007 stating that Ms. Emma Annie D. Arafiles, Court
Legal Researcher, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 48, Pasay City,
incurred tardiness in September and October 2007. She was tardy 11 times in
September and 16 times in October. The Report was docketed as A.M. No. 08107-MeTC (Habitual Tardiness of Emma Annie D. Arafiles, MeTC, Branch 48, Pasay
City.)
Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepao (through a 1st Indorsement dated January
14, 2008) required Ms. Arafiles to comment on the report within ten (10) days
from receipt.
Ms. Arafiles complied with a letter-comment dated January 30, 2008. She
admitted the tardiness and gave various explanations, specifically: that she had
no maid; that she had to attend to the needs of her school children ages eight (8)
and two (2) years; and that she was hypertensive. She asked for human
consideration and apologized for her tardiness, promising that she would no
longer be tardy in the future.
Court Administrator Elepao evaluated Ms. Arafiles explanation and found no
justification for her habitual tardiness. The Court Administrator recommended (1)
that the Report be redocketed as a regular administrative matter, and (2) that
Ms. Arafiles be given a reprimand with a warning that a repetition of the same
offense would warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
The law requires all government officials and employees to render not less than
eight (8) hours of work per day for five (5) days a week, or a total of forty (40)
hours of work per week, exclusive of time for lunch. As a rule, these hours are
from eight (8) oclock in the morning to five (5) oclock in the afternoon.[1]
Under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 14, S. 1991,[2] an officer or employee of
the civil service is considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness, regardless of
the number of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least two (2) months in a
semester or for at least two (2) consecutive months during the year.
We have previously ruled that non-office obligations, household chores, traffic
problems, and health, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons
to excuse or justify habitual tardiness.[3] These are the types of reasons Ms.
Arafiles gave; hence, we cannot free her from liability for her infractions.

Time and again, we have reminded officials and employees of the Judiciary that
by reason of the nature and functions of their office, they must be role models in
the faithful observance of the constitutional principle that public office is a public
trust. A way of doing this is through the strict observance of prescribed office
hours and the efficient use of every working moment, if only to give back the
true worth of what the Government, and ultimately, the people, pay in
maintaining the Judiciary.[4] In short, in the public service, punctuality is a virtue,
absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.[5]
We agree with Court Administrator Elepao that (B)y being habitually tardy, she
[respondent] has fallen short of the stringent standard conduct demanded from
everyone connected with the administration of justice and thus merits the
prescribed penalty. Under Section 52(c)(4), Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular
No. 19, Series of 1999, habitual tardiness is penalized as follows: first offense,
reprimand; second offense, suspension for 1-30 days; and third offense,
dismissal from the service.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Ms. Emma Annie D. Arafiles, Court Legal
Researcher, MeTC, Branch 48, Pasay City, GUILTY of habitual tardiness. Pursuant
to Section 52(c)(4), Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999,
this first offense merits the
penalty of REPRIMAND with the WARNING that a more severe penalty shall be
imposed for the repetition of the same or a similar offense in the future.
SO ORDERED.