Bangus Fry Fisherfolk vs. Lanzanas

A complaint is dismissible for lack of cause of action when administrative remedies are not exhausted, and the exception of patent illegality does not apply where the public officer acted with full authority pursuant to existing regulations, clothing the act with presumptive validity.

On 30 June 1997, DENR Region IV issued an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) to NAPOCOR, authorizing the construction of a temporary mooring facility in Minolo Cove, Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro. The facility was intended to dock a 14.4-megawatt power barge that would serve as the main power source for the entire province pending the construction of a land-based plant. The Sangguniang Bayan of Puerto Galera had previously declared Minolo Cove—an area known as a mangrove and bangus fry breeding ground—an eco-tourist zone. Aggrieved fisherfolks sought reconsideration of the ECC issuance, which the DENR Regional Executive Director denied on 15 July 1997.

• The ECC Issuance: DENR Region IV issued an ECC to NAPOCOR for a temporary mooring facility in Minolo Cove. The facility was necessary to relocate NAPOCOR's power barge from turbulent waters in Calapan to a safer site, ensuring a stable power supply for Oriental Mindoro. The ECC was valid for two years.
• The Challenge: Claiming to be fisherfolks from Minolo, petitioners sought reconsideration of the ECC issuance. RED Principe denied the plea on 15 July 1997. Instead of appealing to the DENR Secretary, petitioners filed a complaint with the Manila RTC on 21 July 1997 for the cancellation of the ECC and the issuance of a writ of injunction to halt construction.
• The Motion to Dismiss: Respondents ORMECO and provincial officials moved to dismiss, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and lack of jurisdiction, as the Manila RTC could not enjoin acts outside its territorial jurisdiction.
• The RTC Ruling: The Manila RTC dismissed the complaint. It held that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies, as the RED's decision could still be appealed to the DENR Secretary. The RTC further noted its territorial inability to enforce an injunction in Oriental Mindoro and its lack of jurisdiction to issue injunctive writs against NAPOCOR, a government infrastructure project, pursuant to P.D. No. 1818.

• Patent Illegality: Petitioners argued that the issuance of the ECC was in patent violation of P.D. No. 1605, which prohibits commercial structures in the enclosed coves of Puerto Galera, and Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code, which require prior consultation and approval from the sanggunian for environmentally critical projects.
• Procedural Deficiencies: Petitioners maintained that NAPOCOR failed to submit required documents proving consultations and locational clearance, rendering the ECC patently illegal.
• Non-Compliance with ECC Terms: Petitioners asserted that NAPOCOR violated the conditions of the ECC by operating the power barge without a separate ECC and failing to secure local government permits, justifying immediate judicial recourse.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Respondents countered that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies, rendering the complaint without cause of action, as an appeal to the DENR Secretary remained available under DAO 96-37.
• Jurisdictional and Territorial Limits: Respondents argued that the Manila RTC lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the construction of the mooring facility in Oriental Mindoro, which lies outside the court's territorial jurisdiction.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the RTC of Manila had jurisdiction over the complaint, considering the territorial limits of its injunctive writs and the prohibition under P.D. No. 1818.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Whether petitioners were exempt from exhausting administrative remedies due to the alleged patent illegality of the ECC.
• Applicability of P.D. No. 1605: Whether the mooring facility violated P.D. No. 1605, which prohibits commercial structures in the ecologically threatened zone of Puerto Galera.
• Applicability of R.A. No. 7160: Whether the construction of the mooring facility required prior consultation and approval under Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code.

• Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the subject matter was properly vested in the RTC because the action for annulment of the ECC is not capable of pecuniary estimation. Venue was correctly laid in Manila, the residence of the principal respondent. However, the RTC could not grant the prayer for injunction due to territorial limitations and the absolute prohibition under P.D. No. 1818 and R.A. No. 8975, which reserve the power to issue injunctive writs against government infrastructure projects exclusively to the Supreme Court.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: The complaint was correctly dismissed for lack of cause of action due to non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. Petitioners bypassed the appeal to the DENR Secretary provided under Article VI of DAO 96-37, depriving the Secretary of the opportunity to review the RED's decision.
• Patent Illegality Exception: The exception for patent illegality was inapplicable. The mere absence of certain documentary requirements does not render an ECC patently illegal. RED Principe acted with full authority pursuant to DENR regulations, clothing his actions with presumptive validity. Patent illegality requires that the officer acted without any semblance of compliance, without jurisdiction, or devoid of color of authority.
• Applicability of P.D. No. 1605: The mooring facility did not violate P.D. No. 1605. The facility is a government-owned public infrastructure intended to serve a basic need, not a "commercial structure; commercial or semi-commercial wharf or commercial docking" contemplated by the decree.
• Applicability of R.A. No. 7160: Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code were inapplicable. The mooring facility itself was not environmentally critical and did not belong to any of the six types of projects enumerated in the law requiring prior consultation and sanggunian approval. The operation of the power barge—which is environmentally critical—is a separate matter from the construction of the mooring facility.
• Non-Compliance with ECC Terms: Alleged violations of the ECC's conditions do not justify bypassing administrative procedures. DAO 96-37 provides a specific administrative proceeding under Article IX for complaints to nullify an ECC, including violations of its conditions.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies — Before seeking judicial intervention, a party must first avail of all means afforded by administrative processes. If a remedy within the administrative machinery is still available, with a procedure prescribed by law for an administrative officer to decide the controversy, such remedy must be exhausted first. Premature invocation of court intervention renders the complaint without cause of action and dismissible.
• Patent Illegality Exception to Exhaustion — The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply when the controverted act is patently illegal. However, to justify non-exhaustion on this ground, the public officer must have issued the act without any semblance of compliance with pertinent laws, without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, with grave abuse of discretion, or obviously devoid of any color of authority. The mere absence of documentary requirements or presumptive validity of the officer's actions negates the application of this exception.
• Prohibition on Injunctions Against Government Projects — Under P.D. No. 1818 and R.A. No. 8975, courts are prohibited from issuing temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, or preliminary mandatory injunctions against government infrastructure projects. This power is reserved exclusively to the Supreme Court.

• "To justify non-exhaustion of administrative remedies due to the patent illegality of the ECC, the public officer must have issued the ECC '[without any] semblance of compliance, or even an attempt to comply, with the pertinent laws; when manifestly, the officer has acted without jurisdiction or has exceeded his jurisdiction, or has committed a grave abuse of discretion; or when his act is clearly and obviously devoid of any color of authority.'"
• "While such documents are part of the submissions required from a project proponent, their mere absence does not render the issuance of the ECC patently illegal. [...] This clothes RED Principe's acts with presumptive validity and negates any claim that his actions are patently illegal or that he gravely abused his discretion."
• "Again, Sections 26 and 27 do not apply to this case because as petitioners admit, the mooring facility itself is not environmentally critical and hence does not belong to any of the six types of projects mentioned in the law."

• Lina, Jr. v. Paño, 416 Phil. 438 (2001) — Followed. Interpreted Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code, limiting the requirement of prior consultations to projects that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of resources, loss of cropland, extinction of species, or eviction of people.
• Pestanas v. Dyogi, G.R. No. L-25786, 27 February 1978 — Followed. Cited for the doctrine that failure to exhaust administrative remedies renders a petition dismissible.
• Mangubat v. Osmeña, Jr., G.R. No. L-12837, 30 April 1959 — Followed. Cited for the definition of the patent illegality exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies.

• Article VI, DAO 96-37 — Governs appeals from rulings of DENR Regional Directors to the Office of the Secretary. Any aggrieved party may appeal within 15 days from receipt of the decision. Failure to avail of this remedy renders the action dismissible for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• Sections 26 and 27, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Require national government agencies to hold prior consultations with the local government unit and secure prior approval from the sanggunian before implementing projects that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of cropland, extinction of animal or plant species, or eviction of people. Held inapplicable to the construction of the mooring facility, which is not environmentally critical.
• Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1605 — Prohibits the construction of marinas, hotels, restaurants, other commercial structures, commercial or semi-commercial wharfs, and commercial docking within the enclosed coves of Puerto Galera. Held inapplicable because the mooring facility is a government-owned public infrastructure, not a commercial structure.
• Presidential Decree No. 1818 and Republic Act No. 8975 — Prohibit courts from issuing injunctive writs against government infrastructure projects. Held to deprive the RTC of jurisdiction to issue the requested injunction against the NAPOCOR mooring facility.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Ynares-Santiago, and Azcuna, JJ.