EN BANC
[G.R. No. 242299. December 7, 2021.]
ARNULFO FEBRIA, EDGARDO LEONGSON, BERNARDO RONDON, JR., AND OCEANA PHILIPPINES INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTED BY GLORIA ESTENZO RAMOS, petitioners, vs.HON. EMMANUEL PIÑOL, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND HON. EDUARDO GONGONA, IN HIS CAPACITIES AS UNDERSECRETARY FOR FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND NATIONAL DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedDECEMBER 7, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 242299 (Arnulfo Febria, Edgardo Leongson, Bernardo Rondon, Jr., and Oceana Philippines International Represented by Gloria Estenzo Ramos v. Hon. Emmanuel Piñol, in His Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, and Hon. Eduardo Gongona, in His Capacities as Undersecretary for Fisheries, Department of Agriculture, and National Director, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). — Section 1, Rule 8 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases provides that the Court will issue a writ of continuing mandamus upon proof that: (1) an agency or instrumentality of government or its officer unlawfully neglects the performance of an act or unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of a right; (2) the act to be performed by the government agency, instrumentality or its officer is specifically enjoined by law as a duty; (3) such duty results from an office, trust or station in connection with the enforcement or violation of environmental law, rule or regulation or a right; and (4) there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law. 2 In this case, the petitioners did not demonstrate the respondents' unlawful neglect to perform an act enjoined explicitly by environmental laws to support their prayer for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus.
Foremost, the writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial duty 3 and cannot be used to control the judgment and discretion of an officer in the decision of a matter which the law gave him the power and imposed upon him the duty to decide for himself. 4 Verily, the promulgation of fisheries policies and regulations is not a ministerial duty and entails the exercise of the respondents' technical expertise and judgment in light of numerous considerations, which include the possible impact on aquatic resources and marine ecosystem. The Court recognizes the expertise of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources which the Congress expressly authorized to curb illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and mandated to ensure compliance of fishing vessels with conservation and management measures. The Court will not interfere with the respondents' exercise of administrative discretion. 5
Moreover, the respondents' alleged inaction was unsubstantiated. The respondents, through the National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Council, adopted and implemented measures to address illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. The respondents fulfilled the mandates and objectives of Republic Act No. 8550, as amended, and its implementing rules and regulations. More telling is that the respondents presented to the petitioners their programs and continued efforts to comply with the requirements of the law. Yet, petitioners were unsatisfied and opted to file the present action. Clearly, the petitioners do not simply seek the implementation of the law but they want to control the respondents' exercise of discretion.
Lastly, the petitioners' general allegation that the respondents' supposed inaction adversely affected the country's marine resources is insufficient to justify the issuance of the writ of continuing mandamus. It bears emphasis that the rule on real party-in-interest applies to a petition for continuing mandamus which means that the remedy is only available to one who is personally aggrieved by the unlawful act or omission. 6 Here, none of the petitioners asserted their personal and substantial interest in the case. The petitioners failed to state in their affidavits any direct injury they suffered or will sustain, as a result of the respondents' alleged inaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DISMISSED." Dimaampao, J., on official leave. (15)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MARIFE M. LOMIBAO-CUEVASClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Section 1. Petition for Continuing Mandamus. — When any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station in connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law, rule or regulation or a right therein, or unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such right and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty, attaching thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the petition concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation, and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied, and to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the malicious neglect to perform the duties of the respondent, under the law, rules or regulations. The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.
2.Dolot v. Paje, 716 Phil. 458, 472 (2013).
3.Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, 595 Phil. 305, 326 (2008).
4.Lamb v. Phipps, 22 Phil. 456, 483-484 (1912).
5. See Sterling Selections Corp. v. Laguna Lake Development Authority, 662 Phil. 243, 266 (2011).
6. See Segovia v. Climate Change Commission, 806 Phil. 1019, 1030 (2017).