G.R. No. 211010, March 7, 2017
Decision, Caguioa, [J]; Concurring Opinion, Velasco, [J], Leonen, [J]

FACTS

This case involves a petition for the extraordinary remedy of a Writ of Kalikasan under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC). The writ is designed to address environmental damage of such magnitude that it prejudices the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. A key procedural issue arose regarding whether the principle of hierarchy of courts, which generally requires litigants to begin their suits in the lower courts, applies to petitions for a Writ of Kalikasan. The ponencia held that the alleged violation of this principle was not a ground to deny the petition.

ISSUE

Whether the principle of hierarchy of courts applies to petitions for a Writ of Kalikasan, thereby prohibiting the direct filing of such petitions with the Supreme Court.

RULING

No, the principle of hierarchy of courts does not apply to petitions for a Writ of Kalikasan. Justice Velasco, in his concurring opinion, provides the legal logic. Section 3, Rule 7 of the RPEC explicitly states that the petition “shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the Court of Appeals.” The use of the disjunctive term “or” grants petitioners a clear alternative choice between these two venues, indicating that the filing is not successive but separate and independent. This textual clarity should not be undermined by importing the nebulous principle of hierarchy of courts, as doing so would deprive citizens of the fair expectation that procedural rules mean what they say.
Furthermore, the deliberate omission of trial courts (e.g., Municipal Trial Courts, Regional Trial Courts) as possible venues in the RPEC underscores the exceptional nature of the writ. This contrasts with other special civil actions like certiorari, habeas corpus, habeas data, and amparo, where the rules explicitly include trial courts as concurrent venues. The limitation to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, both with national jurisdiction, is the intended solution for controversies involving environmental damage affecting multiple cities or provinces. The scale of ecological problems addressed by the writ justifies immediate attention by the highest courts. At the very least, the magnitude of such environmental threats satisfies the “public welfare” exception to the hierarchy of courts rule. The Court, under the RPEC, has burdened itself to resolve factual questions in these cases, making the traditional rationale for the hierarchy rule—that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts—inapplicable.