October 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. Nos. 171947-48 : October 06, 2009]
METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, ET AL. V. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY DIVINA V. ILAS, SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 171947-48 (Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Education, Culture and Sports, et al. v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, represented and joined by Divina V. Ilas, Sabiniano Albarracin, et al.)
RESOLUTION
This treats of the
Motion of SAMAHAN, et al.
SAMAHAN, et al., in their "Urgent Motion with Leave to File a Clarification of the Decision dated December 18, 2008," allege that they are to be affected by petitioners' implementation of our decision in MMDA since petitioners do not have clear guidelines as to the demolition of structures within the straits of Para�aque City such as movants' fishing facilities. SAMAHAN, et al. assert that their fishing facilities should not be demolished as these are not a source of pollution. They claim that the order of demolition issued by the Para�aque City government threatens their livelihood. They raise the following questions: (1) Do the fishing structures, fish corrals, and bangus fry areas produce hazardous substances? (2) Is it legal to dismantle and demolish a fishing structure established under the law? and (3) Is it constitutional to demolish fish corrals and other fishing structures without due process of law?
In their Comment dated July 2, 2009, petitioners posit the following in arguing that there is nothing to clarify in the subject Decision:
(1) The issues raised by the movants are not related to the issues subject of the petition;
(2) The motion actually seeks the issuance of a writ of injunction against the City of Para�aque to enjoin it from dismantling movants' fishing structures;
(3) Since the judgment on the main case has already attained finality, the basis on which the injunctive relief is being sought no longer exists; and
(4) The reliefs prayed for by the movants will be better resolved in a separate proceeding where their interests will be better ventilated and protected.
We agree with petitioners.
At the outset, we are constrained to deny the motion because SAMAHAN, et al. are actually questioning an order of the Para�aque City government, which is not a party to the instant case. As Matuguina Integrated Wood Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[1] ruled:
Generally accepted is the principle that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court,
x x x
Indeed a judgment cannot bind persons who are not parties to the action. It is elementary that strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment rendered by the court and such judgment is not available as an adjudication either against or in favor of such other person. A decision of a court will not operate to divest the rights of a person who has not and has never been a party to a litigation, either as plaintiff or as defendant. Execution of a judgment can only be issued against one who is a party to the action, and not against one who, not being a party in the action has not yet had his day in court.
Although SAMAHAN, et al. have interposed a motion for "clarification," to entertain the issues they raise would amount to an adjudication of the validity of an order by the local government of Paranaque City, an entity that is a stranger to this case. The facts established in MMDA cannot sufficiently be used as basis for resolving the questions posed by SAMAHAN, et al. The clear guidelines they pray for in the demolition of structures are more properly addressed to the concerned government agencies, and, if necessary, in a separate proceeding. These matters are outside the controversy disposed of in MMDA and pertain to a dispute between parties that have both not been impleaded. The function of the courts, it must be stressed, is to resolve controversies between litigants and not to give advisory opinions.[2]
Moreover, to allow intervention, the following must concur: (a) it must be shown that the movant has legal interest in the matter in litigation, or is otherwise qualified; and (b) consideration must be given as to whether the adjudication of the rights of the original parties may be delayed or prejudiced, or whether the intervenor's rights may be protected in a separate proceeding. Both requirements must be met, as the first is not more important than the second.[3]
In turn, the interest that entitles a person to intervene in a suit between other parties must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. Otherwise, if persons not parties to the action are allowed to intervene, proceedings will become unnecessarily complicated, expensive, and interminable.[4]
Movants should be guided by our ruling in Big Country Ranch Corp.v. Court of Appeals,[5] where this Court held:
It is firmly settled in this jurisdiction that intervention will not be allowed when it will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the principal parties, especially if intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. Intervention is not intended to change the nature and character of the action itself, or to stop or delay the placid operation of the machinery of the trial. The remedy of intervention is not proper where it will have the effect of retarding the principal suit or delaying the trial of the action.
Also, in general, an independent controversy cannot be injected into a suit by intervention, hence such intervention will not be allowed where it would enlarge the issues in the action and expand the scope of the remedies. It is not proper where there are certain facts giving intervenor's case an aspect peculiar to himself and differentiating it clearly from that of the original parties; the proper course is for the would-be intervenor to litigate his claim in a separate suit. (Emphasis supplied.)
PAMALAKAYA, et al., in their "Very Urgent and Respectful Motion for Leave to Intervene," allege that they represent small fishermen in Manila Bay. They claim that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is destroying their fishing facilities ostensibly to follow the orders in MMDA, but in reality, the demolition is being carried out to give way to the R-l Expressway Extension Project and a 90-hectare billion-dollar casino on a reclaimed area on Roxas Boulevard. The R-l Expressway Extension Project, they believe, will destroy the remaining coral and mangrove areas in the Cavite portion of Manila Bay and remove 26,000 fisherfolk and urban poor families from their main source of livelihood and abode.
PAMALAKAYA, et al. present the following issues: (1) whether MMDA justified or authorized the demolition of small fishermen's houses, fish pens, traps, and cages; and (2) whether the reclamation of submerged public lands and mangrove areas of the Manila Bay, including the construction of the R-l Expressway Extension Project, is covered by the continuing mandamus for the clean-up, rehabilitation, and protection of Manila Bay. They pray that the reclamation projects undertaken in Manila Bay be regulated, if not discontinued, and that the DENR be ordered to cease from destroying the fishing structures of the small fishermen in Manila Bay. They also pray that the construction of the R-l Expressway Extension Project be enjoined, unless it is shown that it will not destroy the ecological balance of Manila Bay.
In their Comment dated May 26, 2009, petitioners submit that it is improper for PAMALAKAYA, et al. to intervene, as they do not have an interest of a direct and immediate character. They are of the position that PAMALAKAYA, et al.'s motion is actually an action for prohibition, which cannot be adjudicated in the instant case.
We likewise agree with petitioners.
Although PAMALAKAYA, et al.'s motion is different from that of SAMAHAN, et al. in that PAMALAKAYA, et al. pray for relief against acts of a petitioner (DENR), PAMALAKAYA, et al. are not entitled to participate in the instant case. The rule on intervention also finds application to PAMALAKAYA, et al.'s motion.
Previously, this Court has allowed exceptions to the rule on intervention. The rule on intervention, like all other rules of procedure, is intended to make the courts' powers fully and completely available for justice. It is aimed at facilitating a comprehensive adjudication of rival claims overriding the technicality on the timeliness of the filing thereof.[6]
In PAMALAKAYA, et al.'s case, however, we see no compelling reason to grant intervention. The allegations made by movants on the supposed plan by the government to use MMDA to justify its reclamation and infrastructure projects need to be established in court. A full-blown trial with reception of evidence from all the parties would be needed to resolve the controversy being presented by PAMALAKAYA, et al.
PAMALAKAYA, et al.'s intervention is simply improper. Their allegations refer to ill motives supposedly behind DENR's demolition orders, matters that have not been touched on in MMDA. If parties with a conjectural, collateral, consequential, expectant, and remote interest were allowed to intervene, proceedings would, to reiterate, become unnecessarily complicated, expensive, and interminable.[7]
In sum, to allow SAMAHAN, et al. and PAMALAKAYA, et al. to intervene would prejudice the rights of respondents and unduly delay the much-needed work that needs to be done to improve the dismal state of Manila Bay and its surrounding areas. Their intervention would unduly enlarge the scope of this Court's ruling in MMDA. If we were to remand the case, the intervention would likewise force the trial court to cover issues that cannot be adequately resolved without hampering the enforcement of petitioners' obligation to comply with respondents' action instituted more than 10 years ago.
WHEREFORE, the Motions for Intervention filed by SAMAHAN, et al. and PAMALAKAYA, et al. are DENIED without prejudice to a separate proceeding they may file against petitioners or other parties.
(B)
UPA's Motion prays for a clarification of Item 8 in the fallo of MMDA, quoted below:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 28, 2005 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 76528 and SP No. 74944 and the September 13, 2002 Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 1851-99 are AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATIONS in view of subsequent developments or supervening events in the case. The fallo of the RTC Decision shall now read:x x x x
(8) The MMDA, as the lead agency and implementor of programs and projects for flood control projects and drainage services in Metro Manila, in coordination with the DPWH, DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), and other agencies, shall dismantle and remove all structures, constructions, and other encroachments established or built in violation of RA 7279, and other applicable laws along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Para�aque-Zapote, Las Pi�as) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and connecting waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. The DPWH, as the principal implementor of programs and projects for flood control services in the rest of the country more particularly in Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna, in coordination with the DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, HUDCC, and other concerned government agencies, shall remove and demolish all structures, constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other applicable laws along the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other rivers, connecting waterways, and esteros that discharge wastewater into the Manila Bay.
Movants raise their concerns about Metropolitan Manila Development Authority's (MMDA's) summary dismantling of houses and evictioa of the urban poor under the Metro Gwapo Project. They claim to be under continuous threat under this project, as the MMDA does not furnish prior notification. Neither does the MMDA hold any consultations or provide relocation areas. They aver that, as a result, their rights under Republic Act No. (RA) 7279 or the Lina Law are in danger of being violated.
We agree with petitioners that the judgment on the main case has already attained finality and, thus, the injunctive relief being sought no longer exists. Even Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is explicit that the motion to intervene may be filed at any time before the rendition of judgment by the trial court. The same rule applies to petitions before the Court. The motion to intervene must be filed before rendition of judgment; otherwise, the motion is proscribed. The assailed decision was promulgated on December 18, 2008, while the Motion for Intervention was filed only on February 16, 2009. Hence, the motion must perforce be denied.
We take judicial notice, however, of the fact that the eviction and dismantling that the MMDA will undertake stand to affect thousands of families. We, thus, clarify the directive we gave in MMDA to allay fears that the MMDA now has a court order to evict families without due process.
This Court has described in part the role of the MMDA in MMDA as follows:
The mandate of the MMDA and DPWH on flood control and drainage services shall include the removal of structures, constructions, and encroachments built along rivers, waterways, and esteros (drainages) in violation of RA 7279, PD 1067, and other pertinent laws.
What violations are referred to in the preceding paragraph? What are the standards that must be observed in carrying out the removal of illegal structures, constructions, and encroachments? We reproduce the relevant provisions below:
(1) Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1067[8] defines the distance that must be observed when it comes to structures, constructions, and encroachments built along waterways. Article 51 lays down the limitation, viz:
The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the seas and lakes throughout their entire length and within a zone of three (3) meters in urban areas, twenty (20) meters in agricultural areas, and forty (40) meters in forest areas, along their margins are subject to the easement of public use in the interest of recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing, and salvage. No person shall be allowed to stay in this zone longer than what is necessary for recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing, or salvage or to build structures of any kind. (Emphasis supplied.)
(2) RA 7279 or the Lina Law, meanwhile, provides for rules to be adhered to in cases of eviction and demolition:
SECTION 28. Eviction and Demolition. - Eviction or demolition as a practice shall be discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed under the following situations:
(a) When persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds;
(b) When government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented; or
(c) When there is a court order for eviction and demolition.
In the execution of eviction or demolition orders involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, the following shall be mandatory:
(1) Notice upon the effected persons or entities at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of eviction' or demolition;
(2) Adequate consultations on the matter of settlement with the duly designated representatives of the families to be resettled and the affected communities in the areas where they are to be relocated;
(3) Presence of local government officials or their representatives during eviction or demolition;
(4) Proper identification of all persons taking part in the demolition;
(5) Execution of eviction or demolition only during regular office hours from Mondays to Fridays and during good weather, unless the affected families consent otherwise;
(6) No use of heavy equipment for demolition except for structures that are permanent and of concrete materials;
(7) Proper uniforms for members of the Philippine National Police who shall occupy the first line of law enforcement and observe proper disturbance control procedures; and
(8) Adequate relocation, whether temporary or permanent: provided, however, that in cases of eviction and demolition pursuant to a court order involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, relocation shall be undertaken by the local government unit concerned and the National Housing Authority with the assistance of other government agencies within forty-five (45) days from service of notice of final judgment by the court, after which period the said order shall be executed: provided, further, that should relocation not be possible within the said period, financial assistance in the amount equivalent to the prevailing minimum daily wage multiplied by sixty (60) days shall be extended to the affected families by the local government unit concerned.
The Department of the Interior and Local Government and the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council shall jointly promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to carry out the above provision, x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
(3) The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) Governing Summary Eviction under RA 7279 lists those who are covered by summary eviction:
SECTION 2. Coverage - The following shall be subject for summary eviction:
1.0 New squatter families whose structures were built after the effectivity of RA 7279; and 2.0 Squatter families identified by the LGU in cooperation with the Presidential Commission of the Urban Poor (PCUP), Philippine National Police (PNP) and accredited Urban Poor Organization (UPO) as professional squatters or members of squatting syndicates as defined in the Act.[9]
It is pertinent to note that in Samahan ng Masang Filipino sa Makati, Inc. v. Bases Conversion Development Authority, [10] we made the following discussion on the application of eviction and demolition under the Lina Law:
A perusal of the above proviso clearly shows that the aforementioned law allows not only judicial eviction and demolition through court action (e.g., court order), but also summary or extrajudidal eviction and demolition where structures are built on public places, among others, esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, sidewalks, roads, parks and playground; and when government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented. Of the two instances of extrajudicial summary eviction and demolition, the first partake of an abatement of public nuisance of illegal structures built on public places, and the second particularly partakes of a government infrastructure project with available funding that is about to be implemented, x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
Given the aforementioned definition, the MMDA and other concerned government agencies should be aware that our decision in MMDA covers only summary eviction and demolition of those structures, constructions and encroachments that either fall (1) within the PD 1067-proscribed three-meter/20-meter/40-meter zone, as the case may be; or (2) those considered as public nuisances and danger areas as defined in RA 7279. The eviction process that will apply will depend on the classification of the settler or occupant. If the settler is a squatter whose structure or dwelling was built after the effectivity of RA 7279 on March 29, 1992, under Item 1, Sec. 2 of RA 7279, or a professional squatter under Item 2, Sec. 2 of the same law, then he can be summarily evicted, but he is entitled to an eviction notice. Only when a settler has been identified as underprivileged and homeless will all the requirements under Sec. 28 of RA 7279 be complied with.[11]
A distinction must be made between the evictee who is referred to as an "underprivileged and homeless citizen" and the evictee who does not qualify as such. Sec. 3(g) of The IRR Governing the Registration of Socialized Housing Beneficiaries12 refers to underprivileged and homeless citizens as:
beneficiaries of RA 7279 and to individuals or families residing in the urban and urbanizable areas whose income or combined household income falls within the poverty threshold as defined by the National Economic Development Authority and who do not own housing facilities. This shall include those who live in makeshift dwelling units and do not enjoy security of tenure.
In sum, the eviction of underprivileged and homeless persons must conform to the mandatory requirements found in Sec. 28 of RA 7279 on, among others, notice, consultation, and resettlement. The benefits under the said section shall not apply, should the evictee be (1) a professional squatter, as defined in RA 7279; (2) a settler in danger areas as defined in RA 7279; or (3) a settler in zones subject to easement of public use as defined in PD 1067.
The authority of the MMDA to dismantle illegal structures was not given as a means to circumvent the Lina Law. As the lead agency in the flood control projects and drainage services in Metro Manila, it is tasked with the removal of structures that contribute to the discharge of waste into the Manila Bay. While the MMDA's zeal in improving the state of Manila's drainage system and water bodies is laudable, this endeavor cannot go against the rights of those whose dwellings are in danger of being torn down. Movants' fears are justified if there is truly a non-compliance with the rights accorded under the Lina Law. At the very least, it must, thus, be emphasized that the Court's ruling in MMDA does not give the MMDA and other concerned government agencies the power to evict any individual from his or her home without first giving notice. A caveat, however, must be made. The protection the Lina Law accords does not operate to ensure that all settlers' dwellings will be safe from dismantling. The said law discourages eviction and demolition but explicitly allows it in certain situations.
WHEREFORE, the MMDA is ordered to proceed with dispatch in the dismantling of structures and encroachments built in violation of RA 7279. Summary evictions will be undertaken with the required eviction notice. The MMDA, however, must coordinate with the National Housing Authority and affected local government units.
(C)
The Court resolves to GRANT the Motion dated September 17, 2009 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General for the petitioners for an extension of sixty (60) days from September 21, 2009 or until November 20, 2009 within which to file a comment on the Urgent Motion to Cite Heads of Government Agencies in Contempt of Court, with a WARNING that NO FURTHER EXTENSION will be given by the Court.
Puno, C.J., on official leave.
Quisumbing and Chico-Nazario, JJ., on leave.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] G.R. No. 98310, October 24, 1996,263 SCRA490, 505-506.
[2] Automotive Industry Workers Alliance (AIWA) v. Romulo, G.R. No. 157509, January 18, 2005, 449SCRA1.
[3] Magsaysay-Labrador v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 58168, December 19. 1989, 180 SCRA 266.
[4] Id.
[5] G.R. No. 102927, October 12, 1993, 227 SCRA 161, 166-167.
[6] Pinlac v. Court of Appeals, 457 Phil. 527, 534 (2003); citing Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, No. L-45168, September 25, 1979, 93 SCRA 238, 246.
[7] Asia's Emerging Dragon Corporation v. Department of Transportation and Communications. G.R. Nos. 169914 & 174166, March 24,2008, 549 SCRA 44.
[8] Otherwise known as The Water Code (1976).
[9]
The IRR also provides the following process:
SECTION 3. Procedures and Guidelines
1.0 Pre-requisite
1.1 The LGU or the concerned agency authorized to demolished thru their Task Forces on Relocation and Resettlement (TFRR) shall direct its Surveillance Team to conduct an ocular site inspection within 24 hours upon receipt of reports of violation by squatter families. A written report on newly sighted illegal structure shall be prepared and signed by the team leader and any one representative of the UPO or PCUP; and which shall be submitted to the TFRR for immediate action.
1.2 Upon receipt of report from the Team, the Chairman of TFRR shall notify the PNP for the scheduled summary eviction and requests security assistance therefor;
1.3 The TFRR shall submit a copy of the surveillance Team's report to the PCUP.
2.0 Issuance of Summary Eviction Notice
2.1 The Summary Eviction Notice shall be signed by the mayor or his authorized representative worded and printed in English and Filpino or local dialect.
2.2 The notice shall specify the date and time and the summary eviction will be undertaken by the LGU.
2.3 The notice shall be prepared in triplicate copies, the original to the affected family, second copy to be held by the Task Force and the third copy to the PCUP Office.
2.4 The notice shall be served by personal delivery to the squatter family. The occupant or any adult member of this household shall be requested to acknowledge receipt of the notice. Should the person refuse acknowledge the notice, the same shall be affixed conspicuously to the addressee's dwelling. The serving official shall write on the duplicate copies of the notice in the absence or refusal of the occupant to receive and acknowledge the same, and the date and time of its issuance or posting.
2.5 In the Issuance of notice, the following shall be strictly observed:
a. For on-going construction, no notice shall be served. Dismantling of the structures shall be immediately enforced by the LGU or the concerned agency to demolish.
b. For unoccupied structures whether under construction or completed, notice shall be immediately served addressed to the Barangay Chairman. Dismantling structures shall be enforced within 24 hours.
c. For unoccupied structures, notice shall be issued seven (7) days prior to actual dismantling to provide occupants enough time to voluntarily vacate and dismantle their structures. If they refuse to do so, the Task Force shall conduct the actual dismantling activity;
3.0 Implementation of Eviction Process
3.1 Pre-Eviction
a. The eviction team must present duly signed document or authority to dismantle to the occupants present and introduce themselves as the body duly constituted to implement the eviction operation.
3.2 Actual Eviction
a. If the dwelling unit /structure is closed or padlocked, the team shall cause the door to be opened forcibly in the presence of the Barangay representative.
b. If the dwelling unit/structure is open, the eviction team will order the occupants to move out of the structure and remove their valuables and other belongings which they wish to remove and they shall be given one hour to do this.
c. Persons who refuse to leave the structure to be dismantled shall be moved out by force. The Barangay Official present shall be required to assist the dismantling team to perform this act. If only the minors are left in the premises by the household head or occupant, the Team shall leave these minors with the Barangay Chairman or President of the Community Association or the immediate neighbors where their parents or guardian may claim.
d. Whether the occupants voluntarily vacate or not, the Team leader will order the dismantling crew to remove all the occupants' belongings out of the premises. An inventory of the same shall be entrusted to the Barangay Chairman as well as the dismantled materials to be impounded. Materials and belongings unclaimed within 15 days shall be utilized for the improvement of the concerned barangay. Light and water connections shall be cut. Removal of belongings/furniture or dismantling of a structure shall be done carefully to the extent possible to avoid unnecessary destruction.
3.0 Post Eviction
a. After the structure has been dismantled, the Team shall clear and secure the area and take measures to prevent re-entry of evicted occupants as well as any other intruders. If the occupants should surreptitiously re-enter premises and refuse to vacate, the Eviction Team shall re-evict them without notice and cause the [filing of] criminal charges against them.
b. The Team Leader of the TFRR shall prepare the eviction report which substantially recites the proceedings, the inventory of belongings removed and structures dismantled. The members of the team shall sign this report as well as the Barangay Chairman to attest the manner in which the eviction was conducted and the accuracy of the inventory. If the squatter family is willing, he may also sign the report.
c. The eviction report shall be prepared in triplicate, the original to be filed with the Task Force, the duplicate with the Barangay Chairman and the triplicate with the PCUP office.
[10] G.R. No. 142255, January 26, 2007, 513 SCRA 88, 106.
[11] See Bugarin v. Palisoc, G.R. No. 157985, December 2, 2005, 476 SCRA 587
[12] Made pursuant to RA 7279. <http://www.gov.ph/laws/ra7279 irr beneficiaries.pdf>
(visited March 23: 2009)
