251637205-Envi-Law-Case-Digests.docx - CASE DIGEST IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CASES A Castillo Sharla Louisse San Sebastian College-Recoletos College of Law

251637205-Envi-Law-Case-Digests.docx - CASE DIGEST IN...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 51 pages.

CASE DIGEST IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CASES Sharla Louisse A. Castillo 1 | P a g e San Sebastian College-Recoletos College of Law Environmental Law Cases Case Digests Sharla Louisse A. Castillo Schedule: NEL, Friday, 5 to 7 PM Submitted to: Atty. Caguiat
Image of page 1
CASE DIGEST IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CASES Sharla Louisse A. Castillo Oposa v Factoran 224 SCRA 792 Facts: A taxpayer’s class suit was initiated by the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI) together with the minors Juan Antonio Oposa et al and their parents. All were duly represented. They claimed that as taxpayers they have the right to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resources of the country’s rainforests. They prayed that a judgment be rendered ordering Secretary Fulgencio Factoran, Jr, his agents, representatives, and other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country and cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements, Factoran being the secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Issue: Whether or not petitioners have a cause of action? Held: Yes, petitioners have a cause of action. The case at bar is of common interest to all Filipinos. The right to a balanced and healthy ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. The said right implies the judicious management of the country’s forests. This right is also the mandate of the government through DENR. A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. All licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. Merida vs People of the Philippines 554 SCRA 366 Facts: The government hailed Petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Romblon, Branch 81 (trial court) with violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, for "cut[ting], gather[ing], collect[ing] and remov[ing]" a lone narra tree inside a private land in Mayod, Ipil, Magdiwang, Romblon (Mayod Property) over which private complainant Oscar M. Tansiongco (Tansiongco) claims ownership. The RTC handed judgment rapidly. In its Decision dated 24 November 2000, the trial court found petitioner guilty as charged, sentenced him to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal and ordered the seized lumber forfeited in Tansiongco's favor.[12] The trial court dismissed petitioner's defense of denial in view of his repeated extrajudicial admissions that he cut the narra tree in the Mayod Property with Calix's permission. With this finding and petitioner's lack of DENR permit to cut the tree, the trial court held petitioner liable for violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended.
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 51 pages?

  • Summer '17
  • Nicolas
  • Law, Environmental Law, Supreme Court of the United States, Pleading, Sharla Louisse A. Castillo, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CASES

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture