Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > April 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 149635 : April 30, 2008] RED SEA CORPORATION, PETITIONER, V. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated 30 April 2008

G.R. No. 149635: RED SEA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Respondent.

This petition for review on certiorari^[1] assails the 13 March 2001^[2] decision and the 24 August 2001^[3] resolution of the Court of Appeals (appellate court) in CA-G.R. SP No. 58901.  The appellate court granted the petition to set aside the 24 January 2000 decision^[4] of Branch 267 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (trial court) commanding Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) to issue to Red Sea Corporation (Red Sea) the stocking permiet ot allow it to stock bangus fingerlings into its fishpen, and ordering LLDA to pay Red Sea One Million Pesos as actual and compensatory damages, One Hundred Thousand Pesos as attorney's fees and litigation expenses, and costs of the suit.

The appellate court stated the factual and procedural antecedents of the present case as follows:

In implementation of its mandate, under Republic Act No. 4850, [LLDA] approved the Fishery Zonning [sic] and Management Plan (ZOMAP) for the development of the Laguna Lake.  The LLDA approved "the Rules and Regulations" implementing the ZOMAP.  However, the LLDA found it imperative to revise the said Rules and Regulations to provide the framework for the more intensive and efficacious implementation of the ZOMAP.  The [LLDA] conducted a series of consultations with concerned local government units, fishpen operators, fishermen and a technical committee formed by the [LLDA], composed of representatives of the University of the Philippines, at Los Ba�os, Sout East Asian Fisheries Development Center and the Department of Agriculture Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.  On January 25, 1996, the General Manager of [LLDA] approved the "Revised Rules and Regulations" implementing the ZOMAP.  Under Section 3.1 (b) (1 and 2) of the Revised Rules and Regulations, all fishpen structures that fall outside the "new fishpen belt" will not be allowed to operate and will be demolished, except for all fishpens registered with the [LLDA] in 1995 and existing within the 1983 fishpen belt.  However, these fishpens will be allowed to operate within their present area but must transfer to the new fishpen belt, as provided for under the Revised Rules, on or before February, 1997.

Under the Revised Rules and Regulations, an aquaculture Zone Map was prepared and in the custody of the [LLDA], containing the technical descriptions of the fishpen belt area, the bearings of the fishpens, including latitudes and longitudes.  Each fishpen was given an area allocation, including the Zone block number and the municipality where it is located.  The delineations of the fishpens by the surveyors and draftment of the [LLDA] were anchored on the technical descriptions of such fishpens.

The [LLDA]  sent a letter to [Red Sea]  inviting [Red Sea], whose fishpens were registered in 1994 and 1995, to register its fishpens with the [LLDA] for 1996.  The [LLDA] likewise furnished the [Red Sea] with a copy of the "Revised Rules and Regulations" implementing the ZOMAP.  On February 9, 1996, [Red Sea's] representative acknowledged receipt of said invitation and copy of the Revised Rules.

Although the [Red Sea] had been a fishpen operator duly registered with the [LLDA] [prior to the revision of the Rules, with an allocation of a fishpen at the Laguna de Bay area, however, [Red Sea's] fishpens and structures and bangus stock were wiped out by the typhoons that ravaged the country in 1995, causing tremendous financial losses to the [Red Sea] and the consequent cessation of its operations.  However, the [Red Sea] decided to resume its operations in 1996.  Hence, the [Red Sea] heeded [LLDA's] invitation and paid to the [LLDA] its dues/charges per [LLDA's] "Statement of Account," dated August 28, 1996; for the registration of its fishpens for 1996; and, for the operation of the fishpen under the Revised Rules and Regulations.

The [LLDA] allocated to the [Red Sea],a fishpen, with an area of fifty (50) hectares, located in Binangonan, Rizal, identified as "BGM-B-3-L-5" in the Zone Map, sandwhiched between the fishpen of D.I. Fishing and of the fishpen of Genessaret Corporation.  To the left of the fishpen of D.I. Fishing was that of Mayo Fishing Corporation, all aligned along the fishpen belt.

On March 11, 1997, the [Red Sea] submitted a letter-request, with the [LLDA], for the delineation of its fishpen.  On March 23, 1997, a team of surveyors of the [LLDA] namely, Engineer Joel Merida and Draftsman Emmanuel Guadralpa, effected the delineation of the fishpen assigned to [Red Sea], based on the technical description under the Revised Rules and Regulations.  The Surveyors determined the boundaries of the fishpen of the [Red Sea] and showed the same to the personnel of the [Red Sea] who accompanied the surveyor.  The personnel of the [Red Sea] installed bamboo poles around the perimeter of the fishpen in the course of the delineation.  Emmanuel Guadralpa prepared the "Location Plan" of the fishpen of the [Red Sea] and the boundaries of [Red Sea's] fishpen, signed by Engineer Joel Merida, checked by Engineer Arnold Magloyuan and recommended, for approval, by Derlyn D. Geminiano and approved by Carlos C. Tomboc, the Acting General Manager of the [LLDA].  The [Red Sea] later installed the nursery area, approximately 27.18 hectares and in the grow-out area of its fishpen and built structures on two (2) sides of its fishpen.  The [Red Sea] forthwith secured, on April 10, 1997, a "Business Permit" for its operation of its fishpen from the Municipality of Binangonan.

After a month, more specifically, on April 17, 1997, the [Red Sea] wrote a letter to the [LLDA], informing the latter that the fishpen located in its former area had already been demolished and the area cleared of any fishpen materials.  The [Red Sea] further informed the [LLDA] that "its fishpen had already been relocated in the 'new Zone Map BGM-B-3-L-5' and requested that a verification survey be undertaken by the [LLDA] to determine whether the [Red Sea's] personnel constructed its fishpen within the perimeter of the area allocated to the [Red Sea], and conformably with the revised fishpen belt, as reflected in the Location Plan.  [The Red Sea's] request was endorsed by Derlyn D. Geminiano, the Chief of Division of the [LLDA], to the Lake Management Division for survey/verification.  The [Red Sea] paid the [LLDA] the amount of P250,000.00 for the issuance of a Stock Permit, for which it was issued Official Receipt No. 2598438 on April 24, 1997.

On May 23, 1997, the [Red Sea] filed a "Technical Services Request Form" with the [LLDA], for the verification survey of [Red Sea's] fishpen, preparatory to the issuance of a "stock permit" to the [Red Sea].  The latter's request was approved by the [LLDA] after the payment of the appropriate fees therefor.  Engineer Arnold Magloyuan did conduct the survey and prepared a Sketch Map showing that, an area of 4.24 hectares protruded beyond the "Fishpen Belt", as provided for under the Revised Rules and Regulations of the ZOMAP, from the west side of the fishpen towards the Laguna de Bay, a navigational area, thus endangering travellers along the area.  Engineer Arnold Magloyuan prepared and signed his "Technical Survey Report" containing his findings and recommendations thus:

Other findings:

The Nursery Compartment area was fully completed with occupied area of approximate (sic) 4.24 has along the West side was found protruding to the limit of the New Fishpen Belt (based on Block Verification)

B. Recommendation/s:

For issuance of Stocking Permit after re-alignment.  For Re-verification upon completion of Grow-out area.  Re-alignment of west side portion of the pen.

The [LLDA] then informed the [Red Sea] of its findings and requested the [Red Sea] to remove the protruding portion of his fishpen and re-align the western perimeter of its fishpen with that of the adjacent fishpens.  The [Red Sea] refused, claiming that it had not been informed by the [Red Sea] of the "new  fishpen belt" under the Revised Rules and Regulations of the [LLDA], and, hence, was not bound by said Revised Rules.  The [LLDA] refused to issue a stock permit to the [Red Sea].

On July 9, 1997, the [Red Sea] filed a "Petition for Mandamus" under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, with the Regional Trial Court, with a plea for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the [LLDA].  The [Red Sea] alleged, inter alia, that: (a) The [LLDA] unilaterally amended its zoning plan and moved the fishpen belt; (b) The [Red Sea] was not informed of the revision byh the [LLDA], of the zoning map and fishpen belt; (c) The [LLDA] was estopped from relying on the Revised Rules and Regulations, revised zoning map and fishpen belt because: (1) [LLDA's] engineers/employees placed the bamboo markers as delineated by said Engineers; (2) as can be gleaned from the "Location Plan"  prepared and approved, by the [LLDA], the [Red Sea] had paid the requisite fee for the stocking permit to the [LLDA] sans any protest from the [LLDA].  The [Red Sea] prayed of the Court a quo that a writ of preliminary injunction issue and judgment be rendered in its favor after due proceedings, as follows:

VII. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that:

1. Immediately upon the filing of this Petition, an order be issued temporarily restraining [LLDA] from implementing the revised fishpen belt boundaries and allowing [Red Sea] to stock bangus fingerlings in its allocated fishpen lot.

2. After hearing, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued enjoining the aforesaid acts.

3. Judgment be rendered:

a. Commanding [the LLDA] to issue to [the Red Sea] the stocking permit to allow it to stock bangus fingerlings into its present fishpen;

b. Ordering [the LLDA] to pay [the Red Sea] the sums of:

1. P2,919,325.06, as actual and compensatory damages;

2. P1,000,000.00, as moral damages;

3. P1,000,000.00 as exemplary damages;

4. P500,000.00, as attorney's fees and litigation expenses;

5. Such other consequential damages as may be proved in the course of the proceedings; and

6. Costs.

Other reliefs, just and equitable in the premises, are likewise prayed for.

Pasig City, 8 July 1997.

Appended to the Petition, was the Sketch Map prepared by Engineer Arnold Magloyuan, showing the protusion of [Red Sea's] fishpen.

On July 16, 1997, the Court a quo issued a temporary restraining order.  After the due hearings, the Court a quo issued an Order, dated September 1, 1997, granting [the Red Sea's] plea for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in order to preserve the status quo ante until the merits of the case can be heard the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by petitioner Red Sea Corporation is hereby GRANTED upon said petitioner posting of an injunction bond in the amount of ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00) executed in favor of respondent LLDA to answer for whatever damages that the latter may suffer or sustain by reason of this injunction if the Court should finally decide that the [Red Sea] is not entitled thereto.  Consequently, with the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, [LLDA], its agents, officers, representatives and all persons acting on its behalf are enjoined:

(a) from implementing the revised fishpen belt boundaries; and

(b) to allow [Red Sea] to stock bangus fingerlings in its allocated fishpen lot.

SO ORDERED.

On September 5, 1997, the Court a quo did issue a Writ of Preliminary Injunction upon the posting by the [Red Sea] of the requisite bond therefor.

The [Red Sea] filed a "Petition for Certiorari", under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, in this Court, for the nullification of the "Writ of Preliminary Injunction" issued by the Court a quo entitled and docketed as "Laguna Lake Development Authority, versus Red Sea Corporation, et al., CA-G.R. No. 45750 (SP.)".  On January 21, 1998, this Court promulgated a Decision dismissing the Petition of the [LLDA}, with the finding that the respondent Court did not commit any grave abuse of its discretion in granting [Red Sea's] plea for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.  The Decision of this Court became final and executory, and an entry of judgment was made of record in the Book of Entry of Judgments.

Back to the trial Court, in its Answer to the Petition, the [LLDA] averred, inter alia, that: (a) the issuance of a stocking permit to the [Red Sea] and the implementation of the ZOMAP were matters of discretion on the part of the [LLDA], conformably with Republic Act 4850; (b) the [LLDA] never revised the Zone map and the fishpen belt; (c) the [Red Sea] simply made constructions on its fishpen beyond the fishpen belt delineated in the zone map and Revised Rule [sic] and Regulations implementing the ZOMAP.

On January 24, 2000, the Court a quo promulgated a Decision in favor of the [Red Sea] and against the [LLDA], the decretal portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of petitioner Red Sea Corporation as against respondent Laguna Lake Development Authority in the following manner, to wit:

(1) Commanding respondent to issue to petitioner the stocking permit to allow it to stock bangus fingerlings into its present fishpen;

(2) Ordering respondent to pay petitioner the sum of:

(a) P1,000,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages;

(b) P100,000.00 as attorney's fees and litigation expenses; and

(c) Costs of the suit.

The Court a quo found and declared that [the Red Sea's] right to due process was violated when [the LLDA] revised the fishpen belt boundaries without affording [the Red Sea] the right to be heard thereon.

This Court finds the acts of the [LLDA] in revising the fishpen belt boundaries wihtout notice to or pfarticipation by the fishpen operators whose fishpen rights will be affected can be likened to a deprivation of property without due process of law.  It is worthy to note that in order to conform to the new demarcation, [the Red Sea] has to demolish its entire fishpen structure and rebuilt [sic] the same and such will mean tremendous losses in terms of money and the time to be spent in such effort.^[5]

The LLDA filed an appeal before the appellate court and asked whether the trial court committed reversible errors in (a) granting the Writ of Mandamus against the LLDA; and (b) condemning the LLDA to pay damages and attorney's fees to Red Sea.

In its decision dated 13 March 2001, the appellate court ruled in favor of the LLDA and against Red Sea.  The appellate court stated that Red Sea failed to discharge its burden of proving that it constructed its fishpen and the structures within the area delineated by markers in the course of the delineation survey as reflected in the Location Survey Plan and the fishpen belt as found in the Zonal Map.

Moreover, the appellate court found that there is no evidence that the LLDA altered the fishpen belt after the delineation survey of Red Sea's fishpen.  The appellate court stated that the reliance of the trial court and of Red Sea on the notation in the Block Verification Plan of a new fishpen belt is misplaced.  Such an equivocal notation should not be used as factual basis for a finding that the fishpen belt had been altered after 25 March 1997.  Even Arturo Mendoza, Red Sea's witness, had no personal knowledge that the LLDA altered the fishpen belt after 25 March 1997.

The appellate court also correctly set aside the award of actual damages to Red Sea.  The appellate court saw that Red Sea did not produce documentary evidence to prove its claim of unrealized income.  The bare testimony of Red Sea's bookkeeper is not enough as anchor for an award of actual damages worth P1,000,000.

On 19 October 2001, Red Sea filed its petition for review before this Court.

Red Sea asserts that the appellate court grievously erred in finding that Red Sea did not construct its fishpen structures within the area delineated by LLDA.  Red Sea further states that the appellate court should not have disregarded the clear admission of LLDA's own witness that they altered the fishpen belt after the delineation survey.

The petition has no merit.

The rule is well-settled that for mandamus to issue, petitioner must establish a clear legal right to the relief sought, and a mandatory duty of the respondent in relation thereto.^[6]  Contrary to Red Sea's assertions, it is clear that Red Sea failed to comply with all the requirements for the issuance of a stocking permit.  Although it filed the proper application for allocation of fishpen area and paid the corresponding fees, Red Sea's fishpen was clearly beyond the delineation survey as reflected in the Location Survey Plan and the fishpen belt area as found in the Zonal Map.  Moreover, Red Sea failed to prove that the LLDA revised the fishpen belt after 25 March 1997, the date that LLDA made a delineation survey and fixed boundary stakes for Red Sea.

No damages should be awarded to Red Sea because the testimony of its bookkeeper is insufficient to prove unrealized income.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.  The Decision dated 13 March 2001 and the Resolution dated 24 August 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58901 are AFFIRMED.  Costs against petitioner.  CORONA, J., on leave.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

^[2] Rollo, pp. 37-55.  Penned by then Associate Justice (now retired Supreme Court Justice), Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., with Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Josefina Guevara-Salonga, concurring.

^[3] Id. at 56.

^[4] Id. at 95-103.  Penned by Judge Florito S. Macalino.

^[5] Id. at 37-43.

^[6] Gervasio v. Cua�o, G.R. No. 88802, 17 March 1993, 220 SCRA 12.