Hannah Eunice D. Serana vs. Sandiganbayan

HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA v SANDIGANBAYAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008

Nature: Petition for certiorari assailing the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, denying petitioners motion to quash the information and her motion for reconsideration.

Keyword: ESTAFA, Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

Facts: Hannah Serana was appointed by former President Estrada as a student regent of UP Cebu, to serve a one-year term. President Estrada gave P15,000,000.00 to the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc as financial assistance for the proposed renovation. The renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex failed to materialize. The Ombudsman filed estafa case against her before the Sandiganbayan. She moved to quash the information. She claimed that the Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her person, in her capacity as UP student regent because the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over estafa; the petitioner is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27; the offense charged was not committed in relation to her office; and the funds in question personally came from President Estrada, not from the government. As to jurisdiction over her person, she contends that as a UP student regent, she is not a public officer who held the position in an ex officio capacity.

Issue:  Whether the petitioner can be charged of estafa in the Sandiganbayan?

Ruling:

Petitioner can be charged of estafa as provided in Section 4(B) of P.D.  No.  1606. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials in relation to their office.  Also the Sandiganbayan see no plausible or sensible reason to exclude estafa as one of the offenses included in Section 4(bB) of P.D.  No.  1606.  Plainly, estafa is one of those other felonies.  The jurisdiction is simply subject to the twin requirements that (a) the offense is committed by public officials and employees mentioned in Section 4(A) of P.D.  No.  1606, as amended, and that (b) the offense is committed in relation to their office.

As to the issue of whether or not petitioner is a public officer. It was held in Laurel vs Desierto, that public office is the right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercise by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public officer.

Since BOR performs functions similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation. By express mandate of law, petitioner is a public officer as contemplated by P.D. No. 1606 the statute defining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It is well established that compensation is not an essential element of public office. At most, it is merely incidental to the public office. Hence, Petitioner is a public officer by express mandate of P.D.No. 1606 and jurisprudence.

BANGUS FRY FISHERFOLK DIWATA MAGBUHOS vs THE HONORABLE ENRICO LANZANAS

BANGUS FRY FISHERFOLK DIWATA MAGBUHOS vs THE HONORABLE ENRICO LANZANAS

CARPIO, J.:

Parties:

Bangus Fry Fisherfold Diwata Magbuhos, et al. – petitioners

Honarable Enrico Lanzanas, DENR, et al. – respondent

Nature: petition for review of the Order dated 7 November 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7 (Manila RTC), dismissing petitioners complaint for lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction.

Keywords: Jurisdiction, exhaustion of administrative remedies, mooring facilities, DENR, Napocor

­

Facts: On 30 June 1997, Regional Executive Director Antonio G. Principe (RED Principe) of Region IV, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), issued an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) in favor of respondent National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR). The ECC authorized NAPOCOR to construct a temporary mooring facility in Minolo Cove, Sitio Minolo, Barangay San Isidro, Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro. The Sangguniang Bayan of Puerto Galera has declared Minolo Cove, a mangrove area and breeding ground for bangus fry, an eco-tourist zone.^[3]

The mooring facility would serve as the temporary docking site of NAPOCORs power barge, which, due to turbulent waters at its former mooring site in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, required relocation to a safer site like Minolo Cove. The 14.4 megawatts power barge would provide the main source of power for the entire province of Oriental Mindoro pending the construction of a land-based power plant in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. The ECC for the mooring facility was valid for two years counted from its date of issuance or until 30 June 1999.^[4]

Petitioners, claiming to be fisherfolks from Minolo, San Isidro, Puerto Galera,^[5] sought reconsideration of the ECC issuance. RED Principe, however, denied petitioners plea on 15 July 1997. On 21 July 1997, petitioners filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7, for the cancellation of the ECC and for the issuance of a writ of injunction to stop the construction of the mooring facility.

Petitioners opposed the motion on the ground that there was no need to exhaust administrative remedies. They argued that the issuance of the ECC was in patent violation of Presidential Decree No. 1605,^[8] Sections 26 and 27 of Republic Act No. 7160,^[9] and the provisions of DENR Department Administrative Order No. 96-37 (DAO 96-37) on the documentation of ECC applications. Petitioners also claimed that the implementation of the ECC was in patent violation of its terms.

RTC: Dismissed the complaint. Petitioners have clearly failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before taking this legal action in Court. The decision of the regional director may still be elevated to the secretary of the DENR

Issue: The issue is whether the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners complaint for lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction.

Held: The petition has no merit.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law. Such jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought.^[11]

A perusal of the allegations in the complaint shows that petitioners principal cause of action is the alleged illegality of the issuance of the ECC. The violation of laws on environmental protection and on local government participation in the implementation of environmentally critical projects is an issue that involves the validity of NAPOCORs ECC. If the ECC is void, then as a necessary consequence, NAPOCOR or the provincial government of Oriental Mindoro could not construct the mooring facility. The subsidiary issue of non-compliance with pertinent local ordinances in the construction of the mooring facility becomes immaterial for purposes of granting petitioners main prayer, which is the annulment of the ECC. Thus, if the court has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the issuance of the ECC, then it has jurisdiction to hear and decide petitioners complaint.

Clearly, the Manila RTC has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the issuance of the ECC, although it could not issue an injunctive writ against the DENR or NAPOCOR. However, since the construction of the mooring facility could not proceed without a valid ECC, the validity of the ECC remains the determinative issue in resolving petitioners complaint.

Ruling: The Court commends petitioners for their courageous efforts to safeguard and maintain the ecological balance of Minolo Cove. This Court recognizes the utmost importance of protecting the environment.^[33] Indeed, we have called for the vigorous prosecution of violators of environmental laws.^[34] Legal actions to achieve this end, however, must be done in accordance with established rules of procedure that were intended, in the first place, to achieve orderly and efficient administration of justice.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for lack of merit.