MMDA vs. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay G.R. No. 171947: February 15, 2011

MMDA vs.
Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay

G.R. No. 171947 : February 15, 2011
FACTS:
In 1999, the Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (CROMB) filed an action for ma
ndamus to compel the Metropolitan Manila Development authority (MMDA)
and
other government agencies to clean up the Manila Bay" CROMB argued that the
environmental state of the Manila Bay is already dangerous to their health and
the inaction of MMDA and the other concerned government agencies violates
their rights to
life, health, and a balanced ecology guaranteed by the Constitution.
CROMB also averred under the Environmental Code, it is MMDAs duty
to clean up the Manila Bay. The trial court agreed with CROMB and ordered
MMDA et al. to clean up the Manila Bay. MMDA assailed the decision on the
ground that MMDAs duty under the Environmental
Code is merely a discretionary duty hence it cannot be compelled by mandam
us. Further, MMDA argued that the RTCs order was for a general clean up of
the Manila Bay yet under the Environmental Code, MMDA was only tasked to
attend to specific incidents of pollution and not to undertake a massive clean
up such as that ordered by the court"
ISSUE:
Whether or not MMDA may be compelled by Mandamus to clean up Manila
Bay
HELD:
YES. The issuance of subsequent resolutions by the Court is simply an exercise
of judicial power under Art. VIII of the Constitution, because the execution of
the Decision is but an integral part of the adjudicative function of the
Court. None of the agencies ever questioned the power of the Court to
implement the December 18, 2008 Decision nor has any of them raised the
alleged encroachment by the Court over executive functions.
While additional activities are required of the agencies like submission of plans
of action, data or status reports, these directives are but part and parcel of the
execution stage of a final decision under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Section
47 of Rule 39 reads:
Section 47. Effect of judgments or final orders.The effect of a
judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having
jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as
follows:
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties of their

successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a
former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have
been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included
therein or necessary thereto. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is clear that the final judgment includes not only what appears
upon its face to have been so adjudged but also those matters
actually and necessarily included therein or necessary
thereto. Certainly, any activity that is needed to fully implement a
final judgment is necessarily encompassed by said judgment.
Moreover, the submission of periodic reports is sanctioned by Secs. 7
and 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental cases:
Sec. 7. Judgment.If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of

the writ of continuing mandamus requiring respondent to perform an
act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied and to grant
such other reliefs as may be warranted resulting from the wrongful or
illegal acts of the respondent. The court shall require the respondent
to submit periodic reports detailing the progress and execution of the
judgment, and the court may, by itself or through a commissioner or
the appropriate government agency, evaluate and monitor
compliance. The petitioner may submit its comments or observations
on the execution of the judgment.
Sec. 8. Return of the writ.The periodic reports submitted by the
respondent detailing compliance with the judgment shall be contained
in partial returns of the writ. Upon full satisfaction of the judgment, a
final return of the writ shall be made to the court by the respondent. If
the court finds that the judgment has been fully implemented, the
satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in the court docket. (Emphasis
supplied.)
With the final and executory judgment in MMDA, the writ of continuing
mandamus issued in MMDA means that until petitioner-agencies have
shown full compliance with the Courts orders, the Court exercises
continuing jurisdiction over them until full execution of the judgment.

MMDA vs. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay G.R. No. 171947: February 15, 2011

Uploaded by

MMDA vs. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay G.R. No. 171947: February 15, 2011

Uploaded by

MMDA vs.

Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay

(c) In any other litigation between the same parties of their

Sec. 7. Judgment.If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of

You might also like