G.R. No. 187836 & 187916, March 10, 2015
Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers, namely, Samson S. Alcantara and Vladimir Alarique T. Cabigao, Petitioners, vs. Alfredo S. Lim, in his capacity as mayor of the City of Manila, Respondent. / Jose L. Atienza, Jr., Bienvinido M. Abante, Ma. Lourdes M. Isip-Garcia, Rafael P. Borromeo, Jocelyn Dawis-Asuncion, minors Marian Regina B. Taran, Macaila Ricci B. Taran, Richard Kenneth B. Taran, represented and joined by their parents Richard and Marites Taran, minors Czarina Alysandra C. Ramos, Cezarah Adrianna C. Ramos, and Cristen Aidan C. Ramos represented and joined by their mother Donna C. Ramos, minors Jazmin Syllita T. Vila and Antonio T. Cruz IV, represented and joined by their mother Maureen C. Tolentino, Petitioners, vs. Mayor Alfredo S. Lim, Vice Mayor Francisco Domagoso, Councilors Arlene W. Koa, Moises T. Lim, Jesus Fajardo, Louisito N. Chua, Victoriano A. Melendez, John Marvin C. Nieto, Rolando M. Valeriano, Raymundo R. Yupangco, Edward VP Maceda, Roderick D. Valbuena, Josefina M. Siscar, Salvador Phillip H. Lacuna, Luciano M. Veloso, Carlo V. Lopez, Ernesto F. Rivera, Danilo Victor H. Lacuna, Jr., Ernesto G. Isip, Honey H. Lacuna-Pangan, Ernesto M. Dioniso, Jr. and Erick Ian O. Nieva, Respondents, Chevron Philippines Inc., Petron Corporation and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, Intervenors.

FACTS

This is a Resolution resolving post-decision motions filed after the Court’s Decision promulgated on November 25, 2014, which declared Ordinance No. 8187 of the City of Manila unconstitutional and invalid with respect to the continued stay of the Pandacan Oil Terminals. The Court ordered the intervenor oil companies (Chevron, Shell, and Petron) to submit an updated comprehensive relocation plan and schedule within 45 days, with relocation to be completed within six months from submission, monitored by the RTC of Manila, Branch 39. Intervenor Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Intervenor Chevron Philippines, Inc. filed a Motion for Clarification, manifesting it had ceased using the Pandacan terminals since June 2014 but remained a shareholder in the joint venture operator, Pandacan Depot Services, Inc. (PDSI). Intervenor Petron Corporation filed a Manifestation seeking clarification on whether the order to submit a relocation plan pertained only to operations or also to the removal of the physical facilities.

ISSUE

The primary issue for resolution in this Resolution is whether the motions for reconsideration and clarification filed by the intervenor oil companies should be granted, specifically: (1) whether Shell’s Motion for Reconsideration, which argued the Court erroneously relied on factual pronouncements from a prior case (G.R. No. 156052), adopted unsupported fears, and incorrectly found the petitions not mooted by Ordinance No. 8187, has merit; (2) whether Chevron’s request for clarification of a statement in the Decision that oil depots “have no place in a densely populated area” should be granted, and whether the compliance period should be deferred; and (3) whether Petron’s clarification regarding the scope of the “relocation” order is warranted.

RULING

The Court DENIED all motions. Shell’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied as it merely reiterated issues already thoroughly deliberated upon and passed upon by the Court. The Court cited Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco, stating that a motion for reconsideration does not oblige the Court to deal individually with each ground if it contains a mere rehash of arguments. Chevron’s Motion for Clarification was denied. The Court held that the statement that oil depots “have no place in a densely populated area” was based on the specific facts of the case, including the historical incidents of fire and explosion in Pandacan, and was confined to the lis mota. The Court found no encroachment on policy-making powers. The prayer to defer the compliance period was also denied. Petron’s Manifestation was addressed by reiterating that the Court’s Decision in G.R. No. 156052 ordered the removal of the terminals, and thus the current order for “relocation” encompasses the removal of the facilities. The prescribed timelines for compliance remained in effect.