G.R. No. 199199.

August 27, 2013.*

MARICRIS D. DOLOT, Chairman of the BAGONG

ALYANSANG MAKABAYANSORSOGON, petitioner, vs.
HON. RAMON PAJE, in his capacity as the Secretary of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
REYNULFO A. JUAN, Regional Director, Mines and
Geosciences Bureau, DENR, HON. RAUL R. LEE,
Governor, Province of Sorsogon, ANTONIO C. OCAMPO,
JR., VICTORIA A. AJERO, ALFREDO M. AGUILAR, and
JUAN M. AGUILAR, ANTONES ENTERPRISES,
GLOBAL SUMMIT MINES DEVT CORP., and TR ORE,
respondents.
Remedial Law Civil Procedure Courts Jurisdiction None is
more wellsettled than the rule that jurisdiction, which is the
power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case, is
conferred by law.None is more wellsettled than the rule that
jurisdiction, which is the power and authority of the court to hear,
try and decide a case, is conferred by law. It may either be over
the nature of the action, over the subject matter, over the person
of the defendants or over the issues framed in the pleadings. By
virtue of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129 or the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, jurisdiction over special civil actions
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is vested in the RTC.
Particularly, Section 21(1) thereof provides that the RTCs shall
exercise original jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus
and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their
respective regions.
Same Same Same Same The Supreme Court does not have
the power to confer jurisdiction on any court or tribunal as the
allocation of jurisdiction is lodged solely in Congress.A.O. No. 7
and Admin. Circular No. 232008 was issued pursuant to Section
18 of B.P. Blg. 129, which gave the Court authority to define the
territory over which a branch of the RTC shall exercise its
authority. These administrative orders and circulars issued by the
Court merely
_______________
*EN BANC.

651

VOL. 703, AUGUST 27, 2013

651

Dolot vs. Paje

provide for the venue where an action may be filed. The Court
does not have the power to confer jurisdiction on any court or
tribunal as the allocation of jurisdiction is lodged solely in
Congress. It also cannot be delegated to another office or agency
of the Government. Section 18 of B.P. Blg. 129, in fact, explicitly
states that the territory thus defined shall be deemed to be the
territorial area of the branch concerned for purposes of
determining the venue of all suits, proceedings or actions.
Same Special Civil Actions Continuing Mandamus The
concept of continuing mandamus was first introduced in
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned
Residents of Manila Bay, 574 SCRA 661 (2008) Similar to the
procedure under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for special civil
actions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, Section 4, Rule
8 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09
68SC) requires that the petition filed should be sufficient in form
and substance before a court may take further action otherwise,
the court may dismiss the petition outright.The concept of
continuing mandamus was first introduced in Metropolitan
Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila
Bay, 574 SCRA 661 (2008). Now cast in stone under Rule 8 of the
Rules, the writ of continuing mandamus enjoys a distinct
procedure than that of ordinary civil actions for the
enforcement/violation of environmental laws, which are covered
by Part II (Civil Procedure). Similar to the procedure under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court for special civil actions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus, Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules
requires that the petition filed should be sufficient in form and
substance before a court may take further action otherwise, the
court may dismiss the petition outright. Courts must be
cautioned, however, that the determination to give due course to
the petition or dismiss it outright is an exercise of discretion that
must be applied in a reasonable manner in consonance with the
spirit of the law and always with the view in mind of seeing to it
that justice is served.
Same Same Same On matters of form, the petition for
continuing mandamus must be verified and must contain
supporting evidence as well as a sworn certification of nonforum
shopping. It is also necessary that the petitioner must be one who
is aggrieved by an act or omission of the government agency,
instrumentality or its officer concerned. Sufficiency of substance,
on the other hand, necessi
652

652

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dolot vs. Paje

tates that the petition must contain substantive allegations

specifically constituting an actionable neglect or omission and
must establish, at the very least, a prima facie basis for the
issuance of the writ.On matters of form, the petition must be
verified and must contain supporting evidence as well as a sworn
certification of nonforum shopping. It is also necessary that the
petitioner must be one who is aggrieved by an act or omission of
the government agency, instrumentality or its officer concerned.
Sufficiency of substance, on the other hand, necessitates that the
petition must contain substantive allegations specifically
constituting an actionable neglect or omission and must establish,
at the very least, a prima facie basis for the issuance of the writ,
viz.: (1) an agency or instrumentality of government or its officer
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act or unlawfully
excludes another from the use or enjoyment of a right (2) the act
to be performed by the government agency, instrumentality or its
officer is specifically enjoined by law as a duty (3) such duty
results from an office, trust or station in connection with the
enforcement or violation of an environmental law, rule or
regulation or a right therein and (4) there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law.
Same Same Same The writ of continuing mandamus is a
special civil action that may be availed of to compel the
performance of an act specifically enjoined by law. The petition
should mainly involve an environmental and other related law,
rule or regulation or a right therein.The writ of continuing
mandamus is a special civil action that may be availed of to
compel the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law.
The petition should mainly involve an environmental and
other related law, rule or regulation or a right therein. The
RTCs mistaken notion on the need for a final judgment, decree or
order is apparently based on the definition of the writ of
continuing mandamus under Section 4, Rule 1 of the Rules, to
wit: (c) Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court in an
environmental case directing any agency or instrumentality of the
government or officer thereof to perform an act or series of acts
decreed by final judgment which shall remain effective until
judgment is fully satisfied.
Same Same Same A writ of continuing mandamus is, in
essence, a command of continuing compliance with a final
judgment as it permits the court to retain jurisdiction after
judgment in order to
653

VOL. 703, AUGUST 27, 2013

Dolot vs. Paje

653

ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs mandated

under the courts decision.Under the Rules, after the court has
rendered a judgment in conformity with Rule 8, Section 7 and
such judgment has become final, the issuing court still retains
jurisdiction over the case to ensure that the government agency
concerned is performing its tasks as mandated by law and to
monitor the effective performance of said tasks. It is only upon
full satisfaction of the final judgment, order or decision that a
final return of the writ shall be made to the court and if the court
finds that the judgment has been fully implemented, the
satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in the court docket. A
writ of continuing mandamus is, in essence, a command of
continuing compliance with a final judgment as it permits the
court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure the
successful implementation of the reliefs mandated under the
courts decision.
Same Same Same Failure to furnish a copy of the petition to
the respondents is not a fatal defect such that the case should be
dismissed.Failure to furnish a copy of the petition to the
respondents is not a fatal defect such that the case should be
dismissed. The RTC could have just required the petitioners to
furnish a copy of the petition to the respondents. It should be
remembered that courts are not enslaved by technicalities, and
they have the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural
rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty
to reconcile both the need to speedily put an end to litigation and
the parties right to an opportunity to be heard.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the order and

resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Br.
53.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
National Union for Peoples Lawyer (NUPL) and Joven
G. Laura for petitioner.
Gabriel & Mendoza Law Office for respondent Global
Summit Mines Development Corporation.
Del Rosario Law Office for respondent Antonio C.
Ocampo, Jr.
654

654

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dolot vs. Paje

REYES, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court assailing the Order2 dated September
16, 2011 and Resolution3 dated October 18, 2011 issued by
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon, Branch 53.
The assailed issuances dismissed Civil Case No. 20118338

for Continuing Mandamus, Damages and Attorneys Fees

with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Environment
Protection Order.
Antecedent Facts
On September 15, 2011, petitioner Maricris D. Dolot
(Dolot), together with the parish priest of the Holy Infant
Jesus Parish and the officers of Alyansa Laban sa Mina sa
Matnog (petitioners), filed a petition for continuing
mandamus, damages and attorneys fees with the RTC of
Sorsogon, docketed as Civil Case No. 20118338.4 The
petition contained the following pertinent allegations: (1)
sometime in 2009, they protested the iron ore mining
operations being conducted by Antones Enterprises, Global
Summit Mines Development Corporation and TR Ore in
Barangays Balocawe and Bonot Daco, located in the
Municipality of Matnog, to no avail (2) Matnog is located
in the southern tip of Luzon and there is a need to protect,
preserve and maintain the geological foundation of the
municipality (3) Matnog is susceptible to flooding and
landslides, and confronted with the environmental dangers
of flood hazard, liquefaction, ground settlement, ground
subsidence and landslide hazard (4) after investigation,
they learned that the mining operators did not have the
required
_______________
1Rollo, pp. 417.
2Penned by Presiding Judge Rofebar F. Gerona id., at pp. 3435.
3Penned by Executive Judge Victor C. Gella id., at pp. 4345.
4Id., at pp. 2133.
655

VOL. 703, AUGUST 27, 2013

655

Dolot vs. Paje

permit to operate (5) Sorsogon Governor Raul Lee and his

predecessor Sally Lee issued to the operators a smallscale
mining permit, which they did not have authority to issue
(6) the representatives of the Presidential Management
Staff and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), despite knowledge, did not do anything
to protect the interest of the people of Matnog5 and (7) the
respondents violated Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7076 or the
Peoples SmallScale Mining Act of 1991, R.A. No. 7942 or
the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, and the Local
Government Code.6 Thus, they prayed for the following
reliefs: (1) the issuance of a writ commanding the
respondents to immediately stop the mining operations in
the Municipality of Matnog (2) the issuance of a temporary
environment protection order or TEPO (3) the creation of

an interagency group to undertake the rehabilitation of

the mining site (4) award of damages and (5) return of the
iron ore, among others.7
The case was referred by the Executive Judge to the
RTC of Sorsogon, Branch 53 being the designated
environmental court.8 In the Order9 dated September 16,
2011, the case was summarily dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it
was denied in the Resolution10 dated October 18, 2011.
Aside from sustaining the dismissal of the case for lack of
jurisdiction, the RTC11 further ruled that: (1) there was no
final court decree, order or decision yet that the public
officials allegedly failed to act on, which is a condition for
the issuance of the
_______________
5 Id., at pp. 2225.
6 Id., at pp. 2529.
7 Id., at pp. 2932.
8 Id., at p. 34.
9 Id., at pp. 3435.
10Id., at pp. 4345.
11The motion for reconsideration was resolved by the Pairing Judge of
Branch 53 since the Presiding Judge recused himself from the case.
656

656

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dolot vs. Paje

writ of continuing mandamus (2) the case was prematurely

filed as the petitioners therein failed to exhaust their
administrative remedies and (3) they also failed to attach
judicial affidavits and furnish a copy of the complaint to
the government or appropriate agency, as required by the
rules.12
Petitioner Dolot went straight to this Court on pure
questions of law.
Issues
The main issue in this case is whether the RTCBranch
53 has jurisdiction to resolve Civil Case No. 20118338. The
other issue is whether the petition is dismissible on the
grounds that: (1) there is no final court decree, order or
decision that the public officials allegedly failed to act on
(2) the case was prematurely filed for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies and (3) the petitioners failed to
attach judicial affidavits and furnish a copy of the
complaint to the government or appropriate agency.
Ruling of the Court

Jurisdiction and Venue

In dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction, the
RTC, in its Order dated September 16, 2011, apparently
relied on SC Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 7 defining the
territorial areas of the Regional Trial Courts in Regions 1
to 12, and Administrative Circular (Admin. Circular) No.
232008,13
_______________
12Rollo, pp. 4344.
13 Re: Designation of Special Courts to Hear, Try and Decide
Environmental Cases. Issued by the Court on January 28, 2008. Branch
53 of Sorsogon is one of the special courts designated in the Fifth Judicial
Region. The other courts are Branch 1 (Legaspi City), Branch 13 (Ligao
City), Branch 15 (Tabaco City), Branch 25 (Naga
657

VOL. 703, AUGUST 27, 2013

657

Dolot vs. Paje

designating the environmental courts to try and decide

violations of environmental laws xxx committed within
their respective territorial jurisdictions.14 Thus, it
ruled that its territorial jurisdiction was limited within the
boundaries of Sorsogon City and the neighboring
municipalities of Donsol, Pilar, Castilla, Casiguran and
Juban and that it was bereft of jurisdiction to entertain,
hear and decide [the] case, as such authority rests before
another coequal court.15
Such reasoning is plainly erroneous. The RTC cannot
solely rely on SC A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular No. 23
2008 and confine itself within its four corners in
determining whether it had jurisdiction over the action
filed by the petitioners.
None is more wellsettled than the rule that jurisdiction,
which is the power and authority of the court to hear, try
and decide a case, is conferred by law.16 It may either be
over the nature of the action, over the subject matter, over
the person of the defendants or over the issues framed in
the pleadings.17 By virtue of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg.
129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,
jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus is vested in the RTC.
Particularly, Section 21(1) thereof provides that the RTCs
shall exercise original jurisdiction
in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction
which may be enforced in any part of their respective
regions. (Emphasis ours)

_______________
City), Branch 32 (Pili), Branch 35 (Iriga City), Branch 38 (Daet) and
Branch 47 (Masbate City).
14Rollo, p. 34.
15Id.
16Landbank of the Philippines v. Villegas, G.R. No. 180384, March 26,
2010, 616 SCRA 626, 630.
17 Platinum Tours & Travel, Inc. v. Panlilio, 457 Phil. 961, 967 411
SCRA 142, 146 (2003).
658

658

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dolot vs. Paje

A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular No. 232008 was issued

pursuant to Section 18 of B.P. Blg. 129, which gave the
Court authority to define the territory over which a branch
of the RTC shall exercise its authority. These
administrative orders and circulars issued by the Court
merely provide for the venue where an action may be filed.
The Court does not have the power to confer jurisdiction on
any court or tribunal as the allocation of jurisdiction is
lodged solely in Congress.18 It also cannot be delegated to
another office or agency of the Government.19 Section 18 of
B.P. Blg. 129, in fact, explicitly states that the territory
thus defined shall be deemed to be the territorial area of
the branch concerned for purposes of determining the
venue of all suits, proceedings or actions. It was also
clarified in Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge
Matas20 that
Administrative Order No. 3 [defining the territorial
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts in the National
Capital Judicial Region] and, in like manner, Circular Nos.
13 and 19, did not per se confer jurisdiction on the covered
regional trial courts or its branches, such that non
observance thereof would nullify their judicial acts. The
administrative order merely defines the limits of the
administrative area within which a branch of the court may
exercise its authority pursuant to the jurisdiction conferred
by Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.21

The RTC need not be reminded that venue relates only

to the place of trial or the geographical location in which an
action or proceeding should be brought and does not
equate to the jurisdiction of the court. It is intended to
accord
_______________

18GomezCastillo v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 187231, June

22, 2010, 621 SCRA 499, 507.
19Id.
20317 Phil. 9 247 SCRA 9 (1995).
21 Id., at p. 22 p. 19, citing Malaloan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
104879, May 6, 1994, 232 SCRA 249, 261.
659

VOL. 703, AUGUST 27, 2013

659

Dolot vs. Paje

convenience to the parties, as it relates to the place of trial,

and does not restrict their access to the courts.22
Consequently, the RTCs motu proprio dismissal of Civil
Case No. 20118338 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is
patently incorrect.
At most, the error committed by the petitioners in filing
the case with the RTC of Sorsogon was that of improper
venue. A.M. No. 0968SC or the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases (Rules) specifically states that a
special civil action for continuing mandamus shall be filed
with the [RTC] exercising jurisdiction over the territory
where the actionable neglect or omission occurred
xxx.23 In this case, it appears that the alleged actionable
neglect or omission occurred in the Municipality of Matnog
and as such, the petition should have been filed in the RTC
of Irosin.24 But even then, it does not warrant the outright
dismissal of the petition by the RTC as venue may be
waived.25 Moreover, the action filed by the petitioners is
not criminal in nature where
_______________
22Mendiola v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159746, July 18, 2012, 677
SCRA 27, 50.
23Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Rule 8, Section 2.
Rule 1, Section 1, meanwhile, states that the rules shall govern the
procedure in civil, criminal and special civil actions before the Regional
Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts involving
enforcement or violations of environmental and other related laws, rules
and regulations.
24 Under A.O. No. 7, Series of 1983 (as amended, 2009), RTCIrosin,
Branch 55, covers the municipalities of Irosin, Matnog and Santa
Magdalena. Branches 51 to 53 of RTCSorsogon, on the other hand, cover
the city of Sorsogon and the municipalities of Casiguran, Castilla, Donsol,
Juban and Pilar.
25Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. v. Registry of Deeds of Paraaque, 398
Phil. 626, 632 344 SCRA 680, 685 (2000).
660

660

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dolot vs. Paje

venue is an essential element of jurisdiction.26 In Gomez

Castillo v. Commission on Elections,27 the Court even
expressed that what the RTC should have done under the
circumstances was to transfer the case (an election protest)
to the proper branch. Similarly, it would serve the higher
interest of justice28 if the Court orders the transfer of Civil
Case No. 20118338 to the RTC of Irosin for proper and
speedy resolution, with the RTC applying the Rules in its
disposition of the case.
At this juncture, the Court affirms the continuing
applicability of Admin. Circular No. 232008 constituting
the different green courts in the country and setting the
administrative guidelines in the raffle and disposition of
environmental cases. While the designation and guidelines
were made in 2008, the same should operate in conjunction
with the Rules.
A.M. No. 0968SC: Rules of Pro
cedure for Environmental Cases
In its Resolution dated October 18, 2011, which resolved
the petitioners motion for reconsideration of the order of
dismissal, the RTC further ruled that the petition was
dismissible on the following grounds: (1) there is no final
court decree, order or decision yet that the public officials
allegedly failed to act on (2) the case was prematurely filed
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and (3)
there was failure to attach judicial affidavits and furnish a
copy of the complaint to the government or appropriate
agency.29 The respon
_______________
26Union Bank of the Philippines v. People, G.R. No. 192565, February
28, 2012, 667 SCRA 113, 122.
27G.R. No. 187231, June 22, 2010, 621 SCRA 499.
28 1987 Constitution, Article IV, Section 5 Internal Rules of the
Supreme Court, as amended, Rule 4, Section 3 A.M. No. 10420SC
(Revised), March 12, 2013.
29Rollo, pp. 4344.
661

VOL. 703, AUGUST 27, 2013

661

Dolot vs. Paje

dents, and even the Office of the Solicitor General, in

behalf of the public respondents, all concur with the view of
the RTC.

The concept of continuing mandamus was first

introduced in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority
v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay.30 Now cast in stone
under Rule 8 of the Rules, the writ of continuing
mandamus enjoys a distinct procedure than that of
ordinary civil actions for the enforcement/violation of
environmental laws, which are covered by Part II (Civil
Procedure). Similar to the procedure under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court for special civil actions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus, Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules
requires that the petition filed should be sufficient in form
and substance before a court may take further action
otherwise, the court may dismiss the petition outright.
Courts must be cautioned, however, that the determination
to give due course to the petition or dismiss it outright is an
exercise of discretion that must be applied in a reasonable
manner in consonance with the spirit of the law and always
with the view in mind of seeing to it that justice is served.31
Sufficiency in form and substance refers to the contents
of the petition filed under Rule 8, Section 1:
When any agency or instrumentality of the government
or officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an
act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting
from an office, trust or station in connection with the
enforcement or violation of an environmental law rule or
regulation or a right therein, or unlawfully excludes
another from the use or enjoyment of such right and there is
no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a
verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty, attaching
_______________
30G.R. Nos. 17194748, December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 661.
31Manila International Airport Authority v. Olongapo Maintenance Services,
Inc., 567 Phil. 255, 281282 543 SCRA 269, 299 (2008).
662

662

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dolot vs. Paje

thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the petition

concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation, and
praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment
is fully satisfied, and to pay damages sustained by the
petitioner by reason of the malicious neglect to perform the
duties of the respondent, under the law, rules or
regulations. The petition shall also contain a sworn
certification of nonforum shopping.

On matters of form, the petition must be verified and

must contain supporting evidence as well as a sworn
certification of nonforum shopping. It is also necessary
that the petitioner must be one who is aggrieved by an act
or omission of the government agency, instrumentality or
its officer concerned. Sufficiency of substance, on the other
hand, necessitates that the petition must contain
substantive allegations specifically constituting an
actionable neglect or omission and must establish, at the
very least, a prima facie basis for the issuance of the writ,
viz.: (1) an agency or instrumentality of government or its
officer unlawfully neglects the performance of an act or
unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of a
right (2) the act to be performed by the government
agency, instrumentality or its officer is specifically enjoined
by law as a duty (3) such duty results from an office, trust
or station in connection with the enforcement or violation
of an environmental law, rule or regulation or a right
therein and (4) there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the course of law.32
The writ of continuing mandamus is a special civil
action that may be availed of to compel the performance of
an act
_______________
32 The petition must also specify that it concerns an environmental
law, rule or regulation and must pray that judgment be rendered
commanding the respondent to do an act or series of acts until the
judgment is fully satisfied.
663

VOL. 703, AUGUST 27, 2013

663

Dolot vs. Paje

specifically enjoined by law.33 The petition should

mainly involve an environmental and other related
law, rule or regulation or a right therein. The RTCs
mistaken notion on the need for a final judgment, decree or
order is apparently based on the definition of the writ of
continuing mandamus under Section 4, Rule 1 of the Rules,
to wit:
(c) Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court in
an environmental case directing any agency or
instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to
perform an act or series of acts decreed by final
judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is
fully satisfied. (Emphasis ours)

The final court decree, order or decision erroneously

alluded to by the RTC actually pertains to the judgment or
decree that a court would eventually render in an
environmental case for continuing mandamus and which
judgment or decree shall subsequently become final.
Under the Rules, after the court has rendered a
judgment in conformity with Rule 8, Section 7 and such
judgment has become final, the issuing court still retains
jurisdiction over the case to ensure that the government
agency concerned is performing its tasks as mandated by
law and to monitor the effective performance of said tasks.
It is only upon full satisfaction of the final judgment, order
or decision that a final return of the writ shall be made to
the court and if the court finds that the judgment has been
fully implemented, the satisfaction of judgment shall be
entered in the court docket.34 A writ of continuing
mandamus is, in essence, a command of continuing
compliance with a final judgment as it permits the court to
retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to
_______________
33 Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. Province of Aklan, G.R. No. 196870,
June 26, 2012, 674 SCRA 555, 606.
34Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Rule 8, Section 8.
664

664

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dolot vs. Paje

ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs

mandated under the courts decision.35
The Court, likewise, cannot sustain the argument that
the petitioners should have first filed a case with the Panel
of Arbitrators (Panel), which has jurisdiction over mining
disputes under R.A. No. 7942.
Indeed, as pointed out by the respondents, the Panel has
jurisdiction over mining disputes.36 But the petition filed
below does not involve a mining dispute. What was being
protested are the alleged negative environmental impact of
the smallscale mining operation being conducted by
Antones Enterprises, Global Summit Mines Development
Corporation and TR Ore in the Municipality of Matnog the
authority of the Governor of Sorsogon to issue mining
permits in favor of these entities and the perceived
indifference of the DENR and local government officials
over the issue. Resolution of these matters does not entail
the technical knowledge and expertise of the members of
the Panel but requires an exercise of judicial function.
Thus, in Olympic Mines and Development Corp. v.
Platinum Group Metals Corporation,37 the Court stated

Arbitration before the Panel of Arbitrators is

proper only when there is a disagreement between
the parties as to some provisions of the contract
between them, which needs the interpretation and
the application of that particular knowledge and
_______________
35Supra note 33. (Underscoring ours)
36Section 77 of R.A. No. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act) provides that the Panel
of Arbitrators shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear and decide (a)
disputes involving rights to mining areas (b) disputes involving mineral
agreements or permits (c) disputes involving surface owners, occupants and
claimholders/
concessionaires and (d) disputes pending before the Bureau and the Department
at the date of the effectivity of R.A. No. 7942.
37G.R. No. 178188, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 314.
665

VOL. 703, AUGUST 27, 2013

665

Dolot vs. Paje

expertise possessed by members of that Panel. It is

not proper when one of the parties repudiates the existence
or validity of such contract or agreement on the ground of
fraud or oppression as in this case. The validity of the
contract cannot be subject of arbitration proceedings.
Allegations of fraud and duress in the execution of a
contract are matters within the jurisdiction of the ordinary
courts of law. These questions are legal in nature and
require the application and interpretation of laws
and jurisprudence which is necessarily a judicial
function.38 (Emphasis supplied in the former and ours in
the latter)

Consequently, resort to the Panel would be completely

useless and unnecessary.
The Court also finds that the RTC erred in ruling that
the petition is infirm for failure to attach judicial affidavits.
As previously stated, Rule 8 requires that the petition
should be verified, contain supporting evidence and must
be accompanied by a sworn certification of nonforum
shopping. There is nothing in Rule 8 that compels the
inclusion of judicial affidavits, albeit not prohibited. It is
only if the evidence of the petitioner would consist of
testimony of witnesses that it would be the time that
judicial affidavits (affidavits of witnesses in the question
and answer form) must be attached to the
petition/complaint.39
Finally, failure to furnish a copy of the petition to the
respondents is not a fatal defect such that the case should
be dismissed. The RTC could have just required the

petitioners to furnish a copy of the petition to the

respondents. It should be remembered that courts are not
enslaved by technicalities, and they have the prerogative to
relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most
mandatory character, mind
_______________
38Id., at pp. 331332, citing Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd., 492 Phil.
682, 696697 512 SCRA 148, 173 (2005).
39RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 2, Section 3.
666

666

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dolot vs. Paje

ful of the duty to reconcile both the need to speedily put an

end to litigation and the parties right to an opportunity to
be heard.40
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order
dated September 16, 2011 and Resolution dated October
18, 2011 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon,
Branch 53, dismissing Civil Case No. 20118338 are
NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE. The Executive Judge of
the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon is DIRECTED to
transfer the case to the Regional Trial Court of Irosin,
Branch 55, for further proceedings with dispatch.
Petitioner Maricris D. Dolot is also ORDERED to furnish
the respondents with a copy of the petition and its annexes
within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision and to
submit its Compliance with the RTC of Irosin.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., LeonardoDe Castro,
Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Perez, Mendoza,
PerlasBernabe and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Brion, J., On leave.
Villarama, Jr., J., On official leave.
Petition granted, order and resolution nullified and set
aside.
Notes.Dismissal of a case for lack of jurisdiction may
be raised at any stage of the proceedings since jurisdiction
is conferred by law. (Alcantara vs. Nido, 618 SCRA 333
[2010])
The new Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases,
A.M. No. 0968SC, provides a relief for petitioner under
the writ of continuing mandamus, which is a special civil
action that may be availed of to compel the performance of
an act spe

_______________
40 Tomas v. Santos, G.R. No. 190448, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 645,
650651.
667

VOL. 703, AUGUST 27, 2013

667

Dolot vs. Paje

cifically enjoined by law and which provides for the

issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order
(TEPO) as an auxiliary remedy prior to the issuance of the
writ itself. (Boracay Foundation, Inc. vs. Province of
Aklan, 674 SCRA 555 [2012])
o0o

Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.