Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
CA-G.R. CV No. 78049
EVANGELINE AALA, MANUEL MARANAN, RAMON UY LIM, JOSE UY JR., IGNACIO PATAL
REMEDIOS TAMANI, EXCELSIOR DANGILAN, DR. DEMINGO REMIGIO, ROGER BAGALAY, BERT VILLALOBOS, ZALDY PASCUAL AND MARLYN CASTILLO, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs.
GLOBE TELECOMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee,
Facts:
Petitioners-appellants Evangeline Aala, et al. are the principal, teachers, and students of the Solano National High School, who filed a petition before the RTC of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order plus damages, against Globe Telecoms, Inc. which was constructing a VTS on a 400 sq. m. lot at that time.
Petitioners protested against the construction of Globe’s cell site antenna around the vicinity due to security, safety concerns, and health hazards that may cause them such as the exposure to radiation.
The Executive Judge issued a 72-hour TRO and was extended into 20-day period. However, Globe filed an opposition with Motion to Dismiss.
Various medical experts, environmentalists, and law enforcers became witnesses who tried to prove preponderance of their evidence for or against the construction of the cell site that later petitions filed an Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion. But Globe opted to adopt the testimony of the amicus curiae Director Agnette Peralta of the bureau of Health Devices and technology under the department of Health.
Issues:
1.Whether or not an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required to be submitted by the defendant Globe before operating its cell site;
2.Whether or not the proposed cell site will prejudice the health, safety and security concerns of the petitioners and other stakeholders;
3.Whether or not a writ on injunction should be issued to restrain the defendant from putting up and operating its cell site; and
4.Whether or not Globe should secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) before putting up its cell site.
Held:
On Health Hazard
The appellants contend the ruling of the trial court that the perceived health risk of the cell site is unfounded. They deem that in light of the findings of the World Health organization (WHO) that “there are gaps in knowledge that have been identified for further research to make better assess health risks.” But the RTC which the CA also affirmed ruled in favor of the appellee Globe by relying heavily on the present stand of the Bureau of Health Devices and Technology that the radiation emitted by cell site antennas is not hazardous to human health if the minimum safe distance is observed.
On Environmental Concerns
The claim of the Province of Nueva Vizcaya is to be considered as environmentally critical, it being a part of the watershed that supports the hydro-electric dam in Ramon, Isabela, is untenable as there is no showing that said area was declared by law as a watershed reserve nor was it declared by the President as an environmentally critical area. Hence, not being an environmentally critical area, the issuance of an ECC is not required. Neither is the installation of the cell site in Barangay Quirino, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya an environmentally critical project as it is not one of those covered or listed under Proclamation No. 2146.
Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 2002 issued by the EMB-DENR listed the “Based Transceiver Station” as one of the telecommunications projects which are not covered by the EIS System, and as such, an ECC is not required prior to project implementation for the abovementioned project.
On Preliminary Injunction
Injunction is a judicial writ, process of proceeding whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain act. It may be the main action or merely a provisional remedy for and as an incident in the main action.
The main action for injunctions is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding. As a matter of course, in an action for injunction, the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, may issue.
The CA sustained the trial court’s dismissal of the main action for Injunction. Appellants were not entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction, much more to a judgment embodying a final injunction.
The Appeal is Denied for lack of merit. The Decision of the RTC is hereby Affirmed. No Costs.
Case Digest by CBCabalza 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment