GR 246209; (September, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 246209 , September 3, 2019.
MONICO A. ABOGADO, ET AL. (COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS THE “KALAYAAN PALAWAN FARMERS AND FISHERFOLK ASSOCIATION”), NILO LABRADOR, WILFREDO LABANDELO AND ROLANDO LABANDELO, AND INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONERS, VS. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
On April 16, 2019, a Petition was filed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and several individuals, including members of the Kalayaan Palawan Farmers and Fisherfolk Association and residents of Sitio Kinabuksan, Cawag, Zambales, seeking the issuance of writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus over Panatag Shoal, Panganiban Reef, and Ayungin Shoal within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone. They alleged that their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology was being threatened due to the respondents’ failure to enforce Philippine laws against environmental damage caused by Chinese activities, as cited in the 2016 Arbitral Award. The respondents are various government agencies including the DENR, DA, BFAR, Philippine Navy, Philippine Coast Guard, PNP, and DOJ. The Court issued a Writ of Kalikasan on May 3, 2019. During oral arguments, the Solicitor General submitted affidavits from 19 fisherfolk-petitioners stating they were misinformed about the Petition’s nature, believing it was against foreign nationals, not government agencies they considered allies, and requested withdrawal of their signatures. Petitioners’ counsel subsequently filed an Omnibus Motion seeking to withdraw the Petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Petition for writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus should be dismissed based on the withdrawal requests and the allegations of misinformation.
RULING
The Court granted the withdrawal of the Petition and dismissed the case. It found that the withdrawal requests, particularly the affidavits, indicated a lack of genuine consent and understanding among the fisherfolk-petitioners regarding the suit’s true nature and respondents. The Court emphasized the importance of informed consent in public interest litigation and the duty of lawyers to ensure clients fully comprehend the proceedings. Given the withdrawal of the real parties in interest and the allegations of deception, the Court deemed it proper to dismiss the Petition. The resolution underscored that cases protecting the marginalized deserve utmost attention and that those with the least deserve more in law.