G.R. No. 189290. November 29, 2017.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU, REGION VII,
and NOEL C. EMPLEO, Regional Director, petitioners, vs. O.G.
HOLDINGS CORPORATION, represented by its Chairman, MR.
FREDERICK L. ONG, respondent.

Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; Motion for

Reconsideration; A motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition
before an aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.—A motion for reconsideration is an
indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can resort to the special
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. This well-
established rule is intended to afford the public respondent an opportunity to
correct any actual or fancied error attributed to it by way of reexamination
of the legal and factual aspects of the case.
Same; Civil Procedure; Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies; The
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that resort must
first be made with the appropriate administrative authorities in the
resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the same
may be elevated to the courts for review.—The doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies requires that

______________
* THIRD DIVISION.

32

32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

resort must first be made with the appropriate administrative authorities

in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the
same may be elevated to the courts for review. If a remedy within the
administrative machinery is still available, with a procedure pursuant to law
for an administrative officer to decide a controversy, a party should first
exhaust such remedy before going to court. This doctrine closely echoes the
reason behind the rule providing that before resort to the special civil action
of certiorari is allowed, a motion for reconsideration should first be filed
with the public respondent concerned. Exhaustion of administrative
remedies is obliged pursuant to comity and convenience which in turn impel
courts to shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress
has been completed and complied with. The issues that an administrative
agency is authorized to decide should not be summarily taken away from it
and submitted to a court without first giving the agency the opportunity to
dispose of the issues.
Same; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; Factual issues are not a
proper subject for certiorari, which is limited to the issue of jurisdiction and
grave abuse of discretion.—The failure to exhaust administrative remedies
in this case partakes of a particular prominence when we consider the
factual matters that O.G. Holdings brought before the appellate court on
certiorari. Factual issues are not a proper subject for certiorari, which is
limited to the issue of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion. Yet to
argue grave abuse of discretion, O.G. Holdings presented the appellate court
with factual matters that do not appear, at least on record, to have been
shared or even passed upon by EMB-Region 7. The following passage from
the petition for certiorari is worthy of quote as it speaks for itself.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Office of the Solicitor General for petitioner.
Trabajo-Lim Law Office for respondent.

33

VOL. 847, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 33

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

MARTIRES, J.:

At the urging of the Republic, for review1 under Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court are the Decision2 and the Resolution3 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 02530, dated 11 June 2009 and
10 August 2009, respectively, whereby the appellate court nullified
and set aside the Orders dated 6 July 20064 and 7 February 2007,5 of
petitioner, the Environmental Management Bureau-Region 7 (EMB-
Region 7), Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR), in EIA Cases Nos. VII-2006-06-019 and VII-2007-02-
010.6 With the orders, petitioner suspended the Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) it had previously issued to the beach
resort project of respondent O.G. Holdings Corporation (O.G.
Holdings).7 The suspension was triggered by respondent’s violation
of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1586, or the Philippine
Environmental Impact Statement System, having failed to comply
with a condition set forth in the certificate. With the suspension,
petitioner effectively prohibited the operations and further
development of the beach resort. The CA ruled that this was in grave
abuse of discretion.
We required a Comment8 and a reply.9 The parties complied.10

The Facts

The records narrate:

_____________
1 Petition for Review on Certiorari, Rollo, pp. 19-46.
2 Id., at pp. 50-65.
3 Id., at pp. 68-70.
4 Id., at pp. 71-73.
5 Id., at pp. 74-76.
6 Id., at pp. 71-76.
7 Id., at pp. 84-89.
8 Id., at pp. 235, Resolution dated 23 November 2009.
9 Id., at p. 282.
10 Id., at pp. 236-253 (Comment); id., at pp. 290-305 (Reply).

34

34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

Respondent’s beach resort project, the Panglao Island Nature

Resort, comprising 3.0709 hectares,11 is located at Barangay
Bingag, Municipality of Dauis, Panglao Island, Bohol Province.12 In
the resort are native-style cottages, a hotel, a clubhouse, a man-made
islet with a lifeguard post, a shed, and benches. It boasts of
amenities such as a business center, function rooms, sports and
recreational facilities, swimming pools, a spa, wildlife sanctuaries, a
marina, a full-service dive shop and novelty shops, and a beachfront
bar and restaurant.13
On 26 July 2002, EMB-Region 7 issued an Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) to the Panglao Island Nature Resort
Corporation for the beach resort project owned and operated by O.G.
Holdings, with Frederick L. Ong as President (Ong).14 The ECC
reads:

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

(07 02 07-26 0226 402)

The ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU (EMB) of the

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region
VII hereby grants this ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
CERTIFICATE (ECC) to PANGLAO ISLAND NATURE RESORT
CORPORATION for its Beach Resort project located in Barangay
Bingag, Dauis, Panglao Island, Bohol after complying with the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirements pursuant to P.D.
1586.
This Certificate is being issued subject to the following conditions:

1. That this Certificate is issued as one of the requirements for any permit
issuances by other concerned agencies and is valid only for the beach resort
project

_____________
11 Id., at p. 83.
12 Id., at p. 257.
13 Id., at pp. 83-84.
14 Id., at pp. 257-258.

35

VOL. 847, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 35

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

which covers a land area of three point zero seven zero nine (3.0709)
hectares covered by OCT No. 75531 consisting of the following
facilities/amenities;
a. Thirteen (13) units bungalows;
b. Seven (7) units duplex cottage;
c. Three (3) units quadruplex cottages;
d. Swimming pool;
e. Lobby and Restaurant;
f. Library and Function Room;
g. Gazebo and Fitness Gym; and
h. Two-hundred (200) square meter man-made island in the foreshore
area.
2. That it shall be the responsibility of the proponent to secure the
necessary permits/clearances and coordinate with concerned agencies to
include, but not limited to the following:
2.1. Department of Health (DOH)-Region 7 and/or Municipal Health
Office on provision of sewage treatment facilities and Sanitary
Permits;
2.2. DENR-PENRO/CENRO on Foreshore Lease/Other Lawful
Purposes Permit in case of any development in the foreshore area;
2.3. Municipal Engineer’s Office on Drainage Clearance taking into
consideration the provision of catch basins to prevent
siltation/turbidity of seawater;
2.4. Municipal Building Official on Structural Stability and Building
Permit;
2.5. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council Clearance,
for development on-shore;
2.6. Municipal Government on Solid Waste Management, which shall
effectively implement on solid waste management scheme,
segregation and recycling of solid waste prior to disposal in a manner
that does not create nuisance or land pollution.

36

36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

That it shall be the responsibility of the respective government

agencies to monitor the herein stated permits/clearances;

3. That the project proponent shall be held responsible [for] damages

incurred to life, property, and environment brought about by the
implementation of the project. Aggrieved parties shall be justly and timely
compensated. Likewise, the proponent shall set aside One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) representing as Environmental Guarantee
Fund (EGF) for any environmental impacts arising from the project
implementation. This shall be maintained all throughout the duration of the
project;
4. That buffer strip of appropriate tree species either in the form of tree
parks or landscaping should be planted on any applicable areas and shall be
maintained all throughout the duration of the project;
5. That overflow septic tanks from cottages should be pumped to the
Centralized Sewage Treatment Facility and effluent should conform with the
standards set forth in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. 984;
6. That a marine study should be conducted within the primary impact
area and a report should be submitted to this Office thirty (30) days from
receipt of this Certificate;
7. That information signs prohibiting coral collection should be posted on
strategic locations of the project area;
8. That any expansion from the existing approved operation shall be
subject to [other] EIA requirements;
9. That the project shall exit the coverage of ElS System once all the
conditions have been complied with, and henceforth all regulatory activities
shall be conducted by those regulatory agencies concerned, to include but
not limited to those that are indicated in condition No. 2 of this Certificate.
EMB, DENR-Region 7 shall be furnished a copy of the Monitoring
Inspection Report of the said agencies;

37

VOL. 847, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 37

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

10. That an on-the-spot monitoring may be conducted by DENR-PENRO

concerned and/or EMB-Region VII anytime in coordination with concerned
groups;
11. That transfer of ownership of this project carries the same conditions
as contained in this Certification for which written notification should be
made by herein grantee to this Office within fifteen (15) days from such
transfer; and
THIS ECC SHOULD NOT BE MISCONSTRUED AS A PERMIT,
RATHER A SET OF CONDITIONALITIES WHICH SHOULD BE
FOLLOWED BY THE PROJECT PROPONENT IN ALL STAGES
OF THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION IN ORDER TO MITIGATE
POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS [ON] THE ENVIRONMENT.
Noncompliance [with] any of the above stipulations will be sufficient
cause for the suspension or cancellation of this Certificate and/or
imposition of a fine in an amount not to exceed Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) for every violation thereof, at the discretion of this Office
(Section 9 of P.D. 1586).
Given this 26th day of July 2002.

Approved by:

AUGUSTUS L. MOMONGAN
Regional Executive Director

Recommending Approval:

BIENVENIDO L. LIPAYON
Regional Director
Conformé:

FREDERICK L. ONG
President and General Manager

38

38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

Thereafter, O.G. Holdings proceeded to develop and operate the

project, incurring an unspecified “millions of pesos” in the
process.15
On 3 December 2003, EMB-Region 7 monitored the project for
compliance. It found three violations of the ECC: (a) noncompliance
with its Conditions Nos. 2.2, 3, and 6, or the requirements that the
project obtain a foreshore lease, (b) that it establish an
Environmental Guarantee Fund, and (c) that it submit a marine study
on the project’s primary impact area.16 Consequently, the bureau
issued a Notice of Violation, dated 15 March 2004.17
The following month, on 16 April 2004, EMB-Region 7 again
conducted a compliance monitoring, and found that ECC again
failed to comply with Conditions Nos. 2.2 and 6.18 On 13 May 2004,
it issued a Notice of Violation19 to respondent Ong, President and
General Manager of Panglao Island Nature Resort Corporation20 and
Chairperson of O.G. Holdings,21 with an invitation to a technical
conference on 16 June 2004 at the bureau’s office in Mandaue
City.22 EMB-Region 7 Regional Director Bienvenido L. Lipayon
signed the notice.23
At the conference, O.G. Holdings disclosed the difficulties it was
having in securing a foreshore lease for the beach resort project.
Particularly, it stated that the Municipality of Dauis could not give
its favorable endorsement for the lease, as an existing ordinance,
Municipal Ordinance No. 03-1991,24 prohibited any development on
the municipal shorelines. None-

_____________
15 Id., at p. 86.
16 Id., at p. 74.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id., at p. 259.
20 Id., at p. 258.
21 Id., at p. 254.
22 Id., at p. 259.
 23 Id.
24 Id., at pp. 196 and 198.

39

VOL. 847, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 39

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

theless, it made a commitment that it would file “appropriate

documents”25 on the foreshore lease and marine study.
On 1 March 2005, O.G. Holdings submitted a marine study,
finally complying with ECC Condition No. 6.26
The following day, 2 March 2005, EMB-Region 7 held yet
another monitoring and noted the continuing violation of ECC
Condition No. 2.2, viz., the securing of a foreshore lease.27 At this
point, it bears mentioning that the bureau had also received a
complaint from a local fisherfolk organization, the Bingag Little
Fishermen’s Organization, that O.G. Holdings was cordoning the
shoreline at the project site, affecting the right of way of the
fisherfolk.28
On 28 April 2005, EMB-Region 7 again sent O.G. Holdings a
Notice of Violation with respect to ECC Condition No. 2.2.29 O.G.
Holdings replied, in a letter sent on 10 November 2005, that
compliance with the condition was legally impossible. It blamed the
local government unit for allegedly failing to act30 on its request that
the Panglao Island Nature Resort Corporation be given a favorable
endorsement for a foreshore lease. It informed EMB-Region 7 that it
had filed, instead, an application with the Philippine Reclamation
Authority (PRA) for the special registration of a man-made island
located within the project. O.G. Holdings prayed that the bureau
consider the application with the PRA as substantial compliance
with ECC Condition No. 2.2. In support of this prayer, it submitted a
letter,31 dated 25 May 2005, issued by PRA General Manager and
Chief Executive Officer Teodorico C. Taguinod acknowledging
receipt of said application for the registration of

_____________
25 Id., at p. 74.
26 Id., at p. 71.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id., at p. 72.
30 Id., at p. 75.
31 Id., at p. 270.
 40

40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

O.G. Holdings’ man-made island, and advising that PRA’s

requirements must be met.32
On 4 July 2006, EMB-Region 7’s Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) Division recommended the suspension of the
ECC issued to the Panglao Island Nature Resort Corporation.
Incidentally, on the following day, the Department of Tourism issued
a Class “AA” accreditation to the beach resort.33

The Orders of the

Environmental Man-
agement Bureau

Acting on EIA Division’s recommendation, EMB-Region 7

suspended the subject ECC in an order,34 dated 6 July 2006, and
signed by petitioner Alan C. Arranguez (Arranguez), Officer-in-
Charge, Office of the Regional Director, EMB-Region 7, which
reads:

WHEREFORE, viewed from the light of the foregoing and pursuant to

Section 6.0(b) of DAO 96-37, the Environmental Compliance Certificate
(ECC 07 01 04-03 0054 402) issued to Panglao Island Nature Resort is
SUSPENDED for failure of the proponent to submit foreshore lease
agreement and/or permit from the Philippine Reclamation Authority for the
foreshore area of the project.
The proponent is directed to CEASE AND DESIST from undertaking
project expansion and other developments within the project area.
The Chief of the Environmental Impact Assessment Division or his duly
authorized representative is directed to implement this Order within
seventy-two (72) hours

_____________
32 Id., at p. 72.
33 Id., at p. 255, per Accreditation No. R-AA-169-2006.
34 Id., at pp. 71-73, docketed as EIA Case No. VII-2006-06-019.

41
 VOL. 847, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 41
Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

and to submit report within forty-eight (48) hours from its execution stating
the proceedings taken thereon.
SO ORDERED.

(Sgd.) ALAN C. ARRANGUEZ

OIC, Regional Director

In a letter dated 14 July 2006, O.G. Holdings moved for

reconsideration. It pleaded that the suspension of the ECC would
hinder its application with the PRA, as it required an existing ECC
for the special registration of the man-made island.35
The plea prompted the Bohol staff of EMB-Region 7 to visit the
project site on 30 August 2006. The staff reported that there were no
reclamation activities at the site. O.G. Holdings was nevertheless
advised “not to take any activity over the area.”36
However, local fisherfolk reported to the bureau that a
guardhouse was being built at the resort, and that its foundation was
already finished. The fisherfolk also reported that O.G. Holdings
was cordoning seawater at the project site. On 18 January 2007,
EMB-Region 7 investigated these reports, during which O.G.
Holdings manifested that it would no longer proceed with the
construction of the guardhouse but that its cordoning activities
would continue in order to maintain the security of resort guests,
following instructions from the Department of Tourism.37
On 7 February 2007, again, via Officer-in-Charge Arranguez,
EMB-Region 7 issued the second suspensive order.38 This time, the
order included as among the beach resort project’s violations the
construction of a guardhouse within the foreshore area. The order
reads, in part:

_____________
35 Id., at p. 90.
36 Id., at p. 75.
37 Id.
38 Id., at pp. 74-76, docketed as VII-2007-02-010.

42

42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation
 We painstakingly reviewed the records as well as laws, rules and
regulations in order to judiciously resolve the case. As per record, the
proponent has not secured yet a tenurial instrument from the DENR nor has
a permit from the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA). To date,
proponent has failed to submit necessary permit/clearance relevant to the
foreshore area. From the date of the issuance of the Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) until today, a considerable length of time of
more than two (2) years had lapsed for the proponent to process and secure
such permit. The proponent has made a written commitment several times to
comply [with] the same but it was not rectified and complied [with]. The act
of continuous violation can be interpreted as seeming misrepresentation or
deliberate intent to thwart the rules. The same should be taken against the
proponent. The provision of Section 6.0(b) of DENR Administrative Order
No. 96-37 otherwise known as the implementing rules of EIS System Act
punishes violation of ECC conditions. Considering the infraction of the
proponent through the years, it would be fitting to impose a stiffer penalty.
Further, the construction of the guardhouse and the laying of its foundation
within the foreshore area is an apparent violation of the previous order of
this Office and DENR Administrative Order No. 2003-30. Finally, in view
of the suspension of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), the
project is technically operating without an ECC. Under existing policy, a
project without an ECC is prohibited from further implementing/operating
the same. However, the Office in the spirit of due process, gives respondent
proponent the opportunity to submit the required tenurial instrument over
the foreshore area in compliance [with] the ECC condition, and other
pertinent documents which will be made as the basis for the imposition of
appropriate penalty including the cessation of project operation.
WHEREFORE, viewed from the light of the foregoing, this Office
orders respondent proponent to submit the required tenurial instrument for
the foreshore area and other documents relevant thereto within seventy-two
(72) hours from receipt hereof, subject to the evaluation

43

VOL. 847, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 43

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

and review of this Office. If found compliant, the Order suspending the
efficacy of the ECC will be lifted, however, if the documents will be found
insufficient, the CEASE AND DESIST ORDER (CDO) will be
implemented immediately by this Office.
The Chief of the Environmental Impact Assessment Division or his duly
authorized representative is directed to implement this Order within
seventy-two (72) hours and to submit report within forty-eight (48) hours
from its execution stating the proceedings taken thereon.
 SO ORDERED.

(Sgd.) ALAN C. ARRANGUEZ

OIC, Regional Director

In fine, the order stated that unless O.G. Holdings submit a

“tenurial instrument for the foreshore area,” e.g., a foreshore lease
agreement, within the specified seventy-two hours, the ECC for the
Panglao Island Nature Resort Corporation would be suspended
immediately, with the suspension resulting in the disallowance of the
operations and further development of the resort.
O.G. Holdings no longer moved for the reconsideration of this
second order.

The Petition for Certiorari

before the CA

Instead, it filed a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules

of Court before the CA. The petition for certiorari,39 dated 22
February 2007, and docketed as C.A.-G.R. CEB-S.P. No. 02530,40
named as respondents petitioners EMB-Region 7 and Officer-in-
Charge Arranguez, with the latter impleaded in his official and
personal capacities. The petition for certiorari prayed for the
annulment of the 6 July 2006 and 7 Feb-

_____________
39 Id., at pp. 188-215.
40 Id., at p. 188.

44

44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

ruary 2007 orders and claimed an “extreme urgency” in the issuance

of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction41
to restrain the implementation of the orders. The petition also asked
that “a condition”42 in the subject ECC be annulled and/or modified.
At the outset, the petition for certiorari insisted that certiorari
was the proper remedy against the suspension of the project’s ECC.
Appealing the suspensive orders to the Secretary of the DENR, it
argued, would not stay the subject suspension. The petition claimed
that four exceptions existed to prevent the application of the
principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, to wit: (1) to
require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be
unreasonable; (2) the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy; (3) there are circumstances indicating the urgency
of judicial intervention, as when public interest is involved; and (4)
there is irreparable injury. Anent the fourth point, the petition
claimed that cancellations of local and foreign guest bookings, as a
consequence of the suspension, were harming the economic well-
being of O.G. Holdings, its employees, and the Province of Bohol.
To impute grave abuse of discretion on EMB-Region 7 and
Arranguez, the petition claimed that they had imposed “an
impossible condition [to be complied with] within an impossible
seventy-two (72) hours.”43 It pointed out that Condition No. 2.2
came into play only when there were construction or development
activities within the beach resort project’s foreshore area. Thus, the
petition now contended that, first, the resort’s man-made island was
the only reason why EMB-Region 7 and Arranguez were insisting
on a foreshore lease; and, second, the man-made island was not a
construction or development activity on the foreshore area, but a
reclamation

_____________
41 Id., at pp. 209-213.
42 Id., at p. 80.
43 Id., at p. 76.

45

VOL. 847, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 45

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

project located “some ninety (90) meters offshore from the resort.”44
Hence, the petition went on to argue, there was no basis to require a
foreshore lease for the man-made island and the entire beach resort
project. And even if it were assumed, arguendo, that a foreshore
lease was required for the man-made island, it was illogical and
unjust of EMB-Region 7 and Arranguez to have ordered the
stoppage of the operations of the entire beach resort project
considering that its other components were located outside its
foreshore area.
The petition went on to claim that O.G. Holdings attempted in
good faith to substantially comply with Condition No. 2.2, viz., by
applying for the special registration, as reclaimed land, of the man-
made island. Unfortunately, EMB-Region 7 and Arranguez made the
application’s approval impossible when they suspended the beach
resort project’s ECC. The following passage expresses the petition’s
interesting theory on this score:

In effect, while initially Respondents [EMB-Region 7 and Arranguez] were

open to admitting the PRA permit as substitute compliance for the foreshore
lease agreement, they (respondents) have nevertheless subsequently made it
impossible for Petitioner to secure the same since it has suspended its ECC
instead of waiting for the processing and release of the PRA permit. In
short, Respondents demand something from Petitioner but at the same time
have made it impossible for Petitioner to comply with the same by putting
obstacles in every step of the way in Petitioner’s effort to comply with its
impossible condition.45

In fine, the petition for certiorari concluded that EMB-Region 7

and Arranguez acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of or excess of jurisdiction in suspending the subject ECC.

______________
44 Id., at p. 83.
45 Id., at p. 99.

46

46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

The Ruling of the CA

The CA found merit in the prayer for the issuance of the

extraordinary writ of certiorari. The dispositive portion of the CA
decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby

GRANTED. The orders dated July 6, 2006 and February 7, 2007 issued by
OIC, Regional Director, Alan Arranguez, are hereby ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE. Petitioner is hereby relieved of complying with condition No. 2.2,
and in lieu thereof, to submit proof of registration of the reclaimed off-shore
area as soon as it has been granted by the PRA in due course.46

The CA agreed with O.G. Holdings that it would be unreasonable

to require exhaustion of administrative remedies in the case. It
characterized Condition No. 2.2 of the ECC as “presently
unattainable”47 and the suspension of the ECC as arbitrary.48 EMB-
Region 7 and Arranguez, the appellate court held, had thus erred in
suspending the ECC. Such error was no mere error of judgment, but
of jurisdiction, and more so because the suspension also rendered
futile O.G. Holdings’ pending application with the PRA.49 The CA
said: “[P]etitioner [O.G. Holdings] was abruptly robbed of its
opportunity to comply therewith within the legal parameters
afforded by applicable laws on the matter.”50
Interestingly, the appellate court also opined51 that the required
foreshore lease or permit may be dispensed with. There had been a
“gross misappreciation of facts,”52 the CA

_____________
46 Id., at p. 64.
47 Id., at p. 58.
48 Id., at p. 62.
49 Id., at p. 59.
50 Id.
51 Id.
52 Id., at p. 63.

47

VOL. 847, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 47

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

said, as the resort’s man-made island was located offshore.53 Thus,

there was no need for O.G. Holdings to secure a foreshore lease.54
We quote the CA’s discussion on this score, if only so that the
decision under review may speak for itself:55

Be that as it may, this Court is of the opinion that condition No. 2.2 of
the ECC may be dispensed with in view of the fact that the islet for which
respondents sought the petitioner to secure a tenurial document, is, as found
by Deputy Public Land Inspector Alfredo Galarido, within an OFFSHORE
AREA and not on FORESHORE AREA; hence, for all legal intents, there
is no need to secure the required foreshore lease.
The definition of the term “FORESHORE LAND” as discussed in the
case of Republic v. CA, et al., is instructive, thus:

The strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks and
that is alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the tide.” [sic]
(Words and Phrases, “Foreshore”)
“A strip of land margining a body of water (as a lake or stream); the
part of a seashore between the low-water line usually at the seaward
margins of a low-tide terrace and the upper limit of wave wash at
 high tide usually marked by a beach scarp or berm.” (Webster’s
Third New International Dictonary)”

A perusal of the records would clearly show that, indeed, the islet or the
man-made island is found on the offshore area fronting the resort, as can be
clearly seen in the pictures attached to the records. Offshore as defined in
Webster dictionary refers to seaward or at a distance from the shore.
[Citations omitted]

___________
53 Id., at p. 60.
54 Id., at p. 59.
55 Id., at pp. 59-60.

48

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

The appellate court observed that even if it were to be assumed,

for the sake of argument, that the man-made island was a foreshore
development, securing a lease or permit for the same would still not
be possible, given the municipal proscription against such
developments. On O.G. Holdings’ application with the PRA, the CA
then declared that such application was made in O.G. Holdings’
“desire to comply” with Condition No. 2.2; with the PRA
application cast in such light, the CA concluded that it was “unjust
and inequitable” to insist on a foreshore lease for the beach resort
project even after its ECC had been suspended. Finally, the CA
stressed that millions of pesos had been spent on the Panglao Island
Nature Resort.
In the main, the CA ruled that EMB-Region 7 and Arranguez had
acted with grave abuse of discretion. EMB-Region 7 moved for
reconsideration, but it was denied in a resolution dated 11 August
2009.56

The Petition for Review

before this Court

The Court is now faced with the present petition for review, filed
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, imputing errors on the subject
ruling, viz.:57

I. A writ of certiorari will not lie in the absence of grave abuse of

discretion.
II. Factual Issues are not proper in a petition for certiorari.

Issue

The issue is whether the appellate court reversibly erred in

annulling and setting aside the 6 July 2006 and 7 February

______________
56 Id., at p. 29.
57 Id., at p. 30.

49

VOL. 847, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 49

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

2007 Orders of the Environmental Management Bureau. Said

differently, the issue is whether the CA reversibly erred in ruling that
EMB-Region 7 and Arranguez had acted in grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction in
suspending the subject ECC, effectively disallowing the operations
and further development of the Panglao Island Nature Resort. Put
succinctly, the issue is whether the CA reversibly erred in granting
O.G. Holdings’ Petition for Certiorari.

The Ruling of the Court

The petition for review is impressed with merit. There are

obvious errors in the assailed ruling.

The CA erred in granting

O.G. Holdings’ petition when
there was a failure to move
for reconsideration before
seeking certiorari.

A motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before

an aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.58 This well-established rule is
intended to afford the public respondent an opportunity to correct
any actual or fancied error attributed to it by way of reexamination
of the legal and factual aspects of the case.59
O.G. Holdings no longer moved for the reconsideration of the 7
February 2007 order. To assail the order, it instead filed posthaste a
petition for certiorari with the appellate court.

______________
58 Audi AG v. Mejia, 555 Phil. 348, 353; 528 SCRA 378, 383 (2007), cited in
Republic v. Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI), 682 Phil. 186, 193; 666 SCRA
199, 205 (2012).
59 Villena v. Rupisan, 549 Phil. 146, 158; 520 SCRA 346, 358-359 (2007).

50

50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

Petitioners EMB-Region 7 and its then Officer-in-Charge Arranguez

were thus deprived of the opportunity to rectify or, at the least,
address the errors of jurisdiction that O.G. Holdings imputed against
them before the CA.
While there are well-recognized exceptions to the rule,60 none is
said to be present here. For one thing, O.G. Holdings did not
specifically plead any of them in its petition for certiorari. It pleaded
before the appellate court that it would be “futile” to move for the
reconsideration of the 7 February 2007 order as, allegedly, EMB-
Region 7 and Arranguez had “already failed or refused to directly
act on [O.G. Holdings’] letter for reconsideration of [the] previous
July 6, 2006 Order. . .”61
We are not persuaded, it being speculative. At this point, the
petition for certiorari was already fatally defective, and the CA
erred in granting it.

The CA erred in granting O.G.

Holdings’ petition when they
had failed to exhaust available

_____________
60 The exceptions are: (a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a
quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding
have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those
raised and passed upon by the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent necessity for
the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of
the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable;
(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless;
(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for
relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the
granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in
the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceedings were
ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the
issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.
61 Rollo, p. 81; paragraph 6 of the Petition for Certiorari.

51

VOL. 847, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 51

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

administrative remedies before

seeking certiorari.

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires

that resort must first be made with the appropriate administrative
authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their
jurisdiction before the same may be elevated to the courts for
review. If a remedy within the administrative machinery is still
available, with a procedure pursuant to law for an administrative
officer to decide a controversy, a party should first exhaust such
remedy before going to court.62
This doctrine closely echoes the reason behind the rule providing
that before resort to the special civil action of certiorari is allowed, a
motion for reconsideration should first be filed with the public
respondent concerned. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is
obliged pursuant to comity and convenience which in turn impel
courts to shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative
redress has been completed and complied with.63 The issues that an
administrative agency is authorized to decide should not be
summarily taken away from it and submitted to a court without first
giving the agency the opportunity to dispose of the issues.64
O.G. Holdings failed to abide by this doctrine. Administrative
remedies existed against the suspension of the subject ECC, made
available via DENR Administrative Order No. 30, Series of 2003
(A.O. No. 30), which was prevailing at the time of the suspensive
orders. A.O. No. 30 provides:

______________
62 Castro v. Gloria, 415 Phil. 645, 651; 363 SCRA 417, 422-423 (2001), cited in
Estrada v. Court of Appeals, 484 Phil. 730, 739; 442 SCRA 117, 126-127 (2004).
63 Paat v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 146, 153; 266 SCRA 167, 175-177 (1997),
cited in Estrada v. Court of Appeals, id., at pp. 739-740; p. 127.
64 Republic v. Lacap, 546 Phil. 87, 96-97; 517 SCRA 255, 265 (2007), cited in
Special People, Inc. Foundation v. Canda, 701 Phil. 365, 378; 688 SCRA 403, 414-
415 (2013).
 52

52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

Section 6. Appeal.—

Any party aggrieved by the final decision on the ECC/CNC applications

may, within 15 days from receipt of such decision, file an appeal on the
following grounds:

a. Grave abuse of discretion on the part of the deciding authority, or

b. Serious errors in the review findings.

The DENR may adopt alternative conflict/dispute resolution procedures as a

means to settle grievances between proponents and aggrieved parties to
avert unnecessary legal action. Frivolous appeals shall not be countenanced.
The proponent or any stakeholder may file an appeal to the following:

O.G. Holdings thus had the opportunity to file an administrative

appeal on the suspension of the beach resort project’s ECC,
beginning with the Office of the EMB Director. Indeed, the
administrative machinery afforded even an appeal to the Office of
the President, but O.G. Holdings did not avail of such.
It might be argued that Section 6, in A.O. No. 30 applied only to
final decisions on applications for the issuance of an ECC or CNC
(Certificate of Non-Coverage), and not to the suspension of an ECC
that had already been issued. However, the 2013 case of Special
People, Inc. Foundation v. Canda, et al.65 addresses this argument.
The petitioner therein had applied for a CNC for its water-resource
development and

______________
65 Special People, Inc. Foundation v. Canda, id., at p. 387; p. 425.

53

VOL. 847, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 53

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation
utilization project in the Province of Bohol. In 2003, the EMB
Regional Director concerned declared the location of the project to
be within an environmentally critical area, hence not entitled to the
CNC applied for. To assail the EMB Regional Director’s ruling,
similar to the present case, the petitioner filed a special civil action
before the Regional Trial Court, a petition for mandamus. The trial
court dismissed the petition, prompting the petitioner’s appeal before
this Court. We dismissed the appeal for the reason, among others,
that petitioner sought certiorari before exhausting all available
administrative remedies. In our discussion, we highlighted the
general rule on where to appeal the decisions and actions of the
EMB Regional Directors:

The records show that the petitioner failed to exhaust the available
administrative remedies. At the time RD Lipayon denied the petitioner’s
application for the CNC, Administrative Order No. 42 dated November 2,
2002 had just vested the authority to grant or deny applications for the ECC
in the Director and Regional Directors of the EMB. Notwithstanding the
lack of a specific implementing guideline to what office the ruling of the
EMB Regional Director was to be appealed, the petitioner could have been
easily guided in that regard by the Administrative Code of 1987, which
provides that the Director of a line bureau, such as the EMB, shall have
supervision and control over all division and other units, including regional
offices, under the bureau. Verily, supervision and control include the power
to “review, approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of subordinate
officials or units.” Accordingly, the petitioner should have appealed the
EMB Regional Director’s decision to the EMB Director, who exercised
supervision and control over the former.66 [Citations omitted]

_____________
66 Id., at pp. 378-379; pp. 415-416.

54

54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

Certainly, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies

may be disregarded in certain instances;67 as has been noted, O.G.
Holdings claimed before the appellate court that four exceptions
existed in its case to prevent the doctrine from being applied to its
petition for certiorari. Yet in the petition for certiorari, we observe
that O.G. Holdings failed to discuss, let alone prove, how public
interest had any bearing in its case. Neither did it sufficiently prove
how the suspension of the subject ECC would have caused
irreparable injury. On this score, O.G. Holdings merely alleged that
cancelled guest bookings, allegedly due to the suspension of the
project’s ECC, would harm its economic well-being as well as that
of its employees and the Province of Bohol. Indeed, O.G. Holdings
did not even present proof that the vaunted cancellations were in fact
done; and it failed to describe in monetary terms the alleged losses
from said cancellations.
The claims that an administrative appeal of the suspensive orders
would not be the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, and that to
require exhaustion of administrative remedies

_____________
67 Maglalang v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR),
723 Phil. 546, 557; 712 SCRA 472, 483 (2013); The exceptions are: (1) when there is
a violation of due process; (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question; (3)
when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction; (4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency
concerned; (5) when there is irreparable injury; (6) when the respondent is a
department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied and
assumed approval of the latter; (7) when to require exhaustion of administrative
remedies would be unreasonable; (8) when it would amount to a nullification of a
claim; (9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings; (10)
when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (11) when there
are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention; (12) when no
administrative review is provided by law; (13) where the rule of qualified political
agency applies; and (14) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies has been rendered moot.

55

VOL. 847, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 55

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

would be unreasonable are closely intertwined with the petition for

certiorari’s principal claim that EMB-Region 7 and Arranguez had
committed grave abuse of discretion.

The CA erred in making

factual findings in a
certiorari proceeding.

The failure to exhaust administrative remedies in this case

partakes of a particular prominence when we consider the factual
matters that O.G. Holdings brought before the appellate court on
certiorari.
 Factual issues are not a proper subject for certiorari, which is
limited to the issue of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.68
Yet to argue grave abuse of discretion, O.G. Holdings presented the
appellate court with factual matters that do not appear, at least on
record, to have been shared or even passed upon by EMB-Region 7.
The following passage from the petition for certiorari is worthy of
quote as it speaks for itself.

Petitioner’s Resort is located atop a cliff facing the Bohol Strait and
Maribojoc Bay, at the foot of such cliff is a very little foreshore area which
makes any permanent development in said area not only unsuitable, but also
impractical. Besides, Municipal Ordinance No. 03-1991 of the Municipality
of Dauis, where the Resort is located, prohibits any foreshore development
in the Municipality. For these reasons, Petitioner has never made any
development in the foreshore area within the Resort. Since the requirement
under Condition No. 2.2 of Petitioner’s ECC, that is — to secure a foreshore
lease/other lawful purposes permit becomes operative only once Petitioner
should make “any development in the foreshore area,” there is

______________
68 Negros Oriental Electric Cooperative 1 v. Secretary of the Department of
Labor and Employment, 409 Phil. 767, 772; 357 SCRA 668, 673 (2001).

56

56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

obviously no need for Petitioner to comply with said requirement since as

stated earlier, Petitioner has never made any permanent development in the
foreshore area of its Resort. [Underlining provided]69

Elsewhere in the petition, O.G. Holdings described the man-

made island as an “islet,”70 whereas EMB-Region 7 had identified it
in the subject ECC as an “island.”71 O.G. Holdings’ claim that it has
“never made any development in the foreshore area” also flies in the
face of EMB-Region 7’s own finding, stated in its 7 February 2007
order, that O.G. Holdings had constructed a guardhouse and had laid
its foundation within the foreshore area of the resort.72
Yet, following O.G. Holdings’ lead, the CA proceeded to declare
that the man-made island was an offshore development and hence
ruled that the island was not to be covered by the foreshore lease
requirement set forth in Condition No. 2.2 of the ECC. Admittedly,
the CA arrived at the factual premise based on “pictures” and on the
alleged finding of a deputy public land inspector. But these are
insufficient proof. The CA did not identify the kind of “pictures”
these were such that it was persuaded to pronounce, in a certiorari
proceeding, a rather technical finding of fact. From which angle
were the pictures taken or drawn? Were they cartographic, satellite
images, or photographic — of which there are two kinds, digital and
nondigital. Perhaps these decisive pictures were artistic
representations, rendered by hand in graphite or ink, but the CA did
not say. As to its reliance on the alleged factual finding of the deputy
land inspector, suffice it to say that even if it were to be assumed,
arguendo, that the man-made island had indeed been built offshore,
as allegedly found by the land inspector in the fulfillment of the
unique mandate of his of-

______________
69 Rollo, p. 97; pages 19-21 of the Petition for Certiorari.
70 Id., at p. 87.
71 Id., at p. 257.
72 Id., at p. 76.

57

VOL. 847, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 57

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

fice, such finding should not be taken to mean that the EMB, in the
exercise of its own mandate under the Philippine Environmental
Impact Statement System, should automatically exempt the entire
beach resort project from the need for a foreshore lease, as set forth
from the ECC it had issued.
The CA erred in this case in making factual findings in a
certiorari proceeding — even if O.G. Holdings had alleged a
misappreciation of facts on the part of EMB-Region 7. As a rule,
misapplication of facts and evidence, and erroneous conclusions
based on evidence do not, by the mere fact that errors were
committed, rise to the level of grave abuse of discretion.73
Parenthetically, O.G. Holdings should have elevated its factual
issues on administrative appeal to the sound discretion of the DENR,
the government body entrusted with the regulation of activities
coming under its special and technical training and knowledge.74 As
this Court held in the case of Acoba v. Court of Appeals:75

In a special civil action for certiorari, under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, factual issues may not be brought before us. Here
petitioner’s submission, however, shows that he is raising issues concerning
alleged errors and misapprehensions of facts committed by the Court of
Appeals. These are not correctible by certiorari under Rule 65. The only
question that may be raised in a petition for certiorari is whether the
respondent has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is not the
office of a writ of certiorari to correct errors of fact or law which the lower
court may have committed. An error of judgment committed by a court

______________
73 People v. Nazareno, 612 Phil. 753, 769; 595 SCRA 438, 452-453 (2009), cited
in Ysidoro v. Leonardo-De Castro, 681 Phil. 1, 17; 665 SCRA 1, 16 (2012).
74 Quiambao v. Court of Appeals, 494 Phil. 16, 28; 454 SCRA 17, 39 (2005).
75 G.R. No. 144459, 3 February 2004.

58

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

in the exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction is not the same as grave abuse of
discretion.

The CA erred in finding grave

abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in the
suspension of the subject ECC.

To recall, the CA found grave abuse of discretion, amounting to

lack or excess of jurisdiction, on the part of the EMB-Region 7 and
Arranguez based on the theory that their suspension of the subject
ECC made O.G. Holdings’ PRA application problematic. We recall
the theory, as follows:
O.G. Holdings was seeking to comply with Condition No. 2.2. of
the beach resort project’s ECC, which was issued in 2002. But the
compliance, i.e., obtaining a foreshore lease or permit, was “legally
impossible” due to an ordinance prohibiting foreshore developments
in the municipality. So in 2005, O.G. Holdings filed an application
with the PRA for the special registration, as reclaimed land, of its
man-made island, and asked that EMB-Region 7 consider the
application as substantial compliance with Condition No. 2.2.76 But
in 2007, after noting O.G. Holdings’ continued violation of the ECC
(for failure to comply with Condition No. 2.2), EMB-Region 7
suspended the ECC, prompting O.G. Holdings to assert, on
certiorari before the CA, that the suspension had rendered
impossible the approval of their PRA registration. O.G. Holdings
emphasized that it needed the registration for its substantial
compliance with Condition No. 2.2, which compliance, in turn, was
pivotal in securing or rather, recovering the ECC for its beach resort
project. In fine, O.G. Holdings posited that it needed an ECC in
order that it may obtain an ECC. From the foregoing, O.G. Holdings
theorized that EMB-Region 7

______________
76 Rollo, p. 75 (see p. 2 of 7 February 2007 Order); pp. 196-197 (see p. 9 of
Petition for Certiorari).

59

VOL. 847, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 59

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

and Arranguez had acted with grave abuse of discretion in

suspending the ECC.
That the CA was convinced by this circuitous theory with its
obviously flawed premises is remarkable.
The flaws are two-fold. First. It is wrong to suppose that an
application for the registration of a man-made island, as reclaimed
land, may substitute for a foreshore lease agreement or permit. This
same observation holds true even if the substitution sought involved
the approved registration. Incidentally, it bears mentioning that O.G.
Holdings’ application for the man-made island was made under
PRA Administrative Order No. 2005-1, or the Rules and Procedures
for Special Registration of Unauthorized/Illegal Reclamation
Projects.77
Certainly, the supposition would be acceptable were there a law
or regulation authorizing such a substitution. Unfortunately for O.G.
Holdings, it failed to plead such law or regulation in its petition for
certiorari.
Second. Even if it were to be assumed, arguendo, that such law
or regulation existed, it is wrong to suppose that EMB-Region 7 and
Arranguez had acted in grave abuse of discretion simply because
they had practically rejected O.G. Holdings’ proposed substitution
for Condition No. 2.2. Indeed, the acceptance of the proposed
substitution still lay within the sound discretion of EMB-Region 7
and Arranguez.
For these reasons, the CA erred in ruling that EMB-Region 7 and
Arranguez had acted in grave abuse of discretion. Time and again
we have held that a petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave
abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist.78 Abuse of
discretion is grave if it is so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal

______________
77 Id., p. 262.
78 Beluso v. Commission on Elections, 635 Phil. 436, 443; 621 SCRA 450, 456
(2010), cited Bergonia v. Court of Appeals (4th Division), 680 Phil. 334, 341; 664
SCRA 322, 328 (2012).

60

60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of

law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic
manner by reason of passion or hostility.79
Here, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of EMB-
Region 7 and Arranguez when they suspended the ECC for the
Panglao Island Nature Resort Corporation. Indeed, we cannot even
find mere abuse of discretion in the act, as it came on the heels of a
recommendation from the EIA Division and was provoked by O.G.
Holdings’ continuous noncompliance with Condition No. 2.2 of the
ECC. Such noncompliance is a violation that the National
Environmental Protection Council, now the Environmental
Management Bureau, was authorized to penalize under P.D. No.
1586, viz.:

Section 9
Penalty for Violation

Any person, corporation or partnership found violating Section 4 of this

Decree, or the terms and conditions in the issuance of the Environmental
Compliance Certificate, or of the standards, rules and regulations issued by
the National Environmental Protection Council pursuant to this Decree shall
be punished by the suspension or cancellation of his/its certificate and/or a
fine in an amount not to exceed Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.000) for
every violation thereof, at the discretion of the National Environmental
Protection Council.

With this penalizing law in existence, there is no basis to rule that

EMB-Region 7 and Arranguez had acted in excess or lack of
jurisdiction. We consider, also, that EMB-Region 7 had issued
several notices of violations to O.G. Holdings before it came to the
lawful decision to suspend the subject ECC for its noncompliance
with a condition. This indicates a considerable

_______________
79 Estrada v. Desierto, 487 Phil. 169, 182; 445 SCRA 655, 668 (2004), citing
Duero v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 12, 20; 373 SCRA 11, 17 (2002), cited in
Bergonia v. Court of Appeals (4th Division), id.

61

VOL. 847, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 61

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

effort to resolve the violation judiciously and prudently, without

automatically resorting to the penalty provided therefor.
We also consider it strange that O.G. Holdings had found it
expedient to pray, via its petition for certiorari with the CA, for the
annulment or modification of an unspecified “condition”80 in the
ECC, implicitly Condition No. 2.2. To include such a prayer in the
petition for certiorari was clearly a procedural error on O.G.
Holdings’ part. A.O. No. 30 provided for an administrative
machinery for amending an existing ECC, viz.:

8.3 Amending an ECC

Requirements for processing ECC amendments shall depend on the nature

of the request but shall be focused on the information necessary to assess the
environmental impact of such changes.

8.3.1. Requests for minor changes to ECCs such as extension of deadlines

for submission of post-ECC requirements shall be decided upon by the
endorsing authority.

8.3.2. Requests for major changes to ECCs shall be decided upon by the

deciding authority.

8.3.3. For ECCs issued pursuant to an IEE or IEE checklist, the processing

of the amendment application shall not exceed thirty (30) working days; and
for ECCs issued pursuant to an EIS, the processing shall not exceed sixty
(60) working days. Provisions on automatic approval related to prescribe
timeframes under AO 42 shall also apply for the processing of applications
to amend ECCs.
 O.G. Holdings should thus have brought its concerns over
Condition No. 2.2 to the attention of this administrative machinery,
and should have brought it at the first instance, or upon the issuance
of the ECC in 2002. That it did not do so

_____________
80 Rollo, p. 80.

62

62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

again indicates the prematurity of its petition for certiorari, and

reflects badly on the appellate court, which expressly “opined” in
the decision under review that Condition No. 2.2 “may be dispensed
with.”81 On this note, we also observe, that about five years had
lapsed from the issuance of the ECC before its suspension. All that
time, it appears that the beach resort project had been tolerated to
operate without a foreshore lease agreement or permit.
In fine, the CA erred in granting the petition for certiorari despite
O.G. Holdings’ unjustified failure to exhaust the available
administrative remedies for the suspension of its beach resort
project’s ECC.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Petition
of the Republic is GRANTED. There being no grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of
the Environmental Management Bureau, Region 7, and of Alan C.
Arranguez, Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Regional Director,
EMB-Region 7, in the issuance of the Orders dated 6 July 200682
and 7 February 2007, and in EIA Cases Nos. VII-2006-06-019 and
VII-2007-02-010, the Decision and the Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 02530 are hereby SET ASIDE. The 6
July 2006 and 7 February 2007 Orders of the EMB-Region 7 are
ordered REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin and Leonen, JJ., concur.

Gesmundo, J., On leave.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution set aside.

______________
81 Id., at p. 59.
82 Id., at pp. 71-73.
 63

VOL. 847, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 63

Republic vs. O.G. Holdings Corporation

Notes.—The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is

based on practical and legal reasons; The courts of justice, for
reasons of comity and convenience, will shy away from a dispute
until the system of administrative redress has been completed and
complied with, so as to give the administrative agency concerned
every opportunity to correct its error and dispose of the case.
(Special Audit Team, Commission on Audit vs. Court of Appeals, 696
SCRA 166 [2013])
In case of an illegal assessment where the assessment was issued
without authority, exhaustion of administrative remedies is not
necessary and the taxpayer may directly resort to judicial action.
(City of Lapu-Lapu vs. Philippine Economic Zone Authority, 742
SCRA 524 [2014])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.