This case highlights the complexities of environmental advocacy, particularly when representing vulnerable communities. The Supreme Court dismissed a petition for writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus concerning environmental damage in the West Philippine Sea, filed on behalf of fisherfolk. The dismissal came after several petitioners disavowed the suit, claiming they were misled about its nature. The Court emphasized the importance of informed consent and diligent representation, warning the lawyers involved to be more mindful of their duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility, and it underscores the crucial balance between zealous advocacy and ensuring clients’ genuine understanding and consent.

Clash of Interests: Fisherfolk, Environmental Damage, and Legal Representation in Disputed Waters

The case of Abogado v. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) began with a petition filed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and a group of fisherfolk, collectively known as the “Kalayaan Palawan Farmers and Fisherfolk Association,” along with several residents of Zambales. The petitioners sought writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus to compel government agencies to enforce environmental laws in Panatag Shoal (Scarborough Shoal), Panganiban Reef (Mischief Reef), and Ayungin Shoal (Second Thomas Shoal). They argued that the actions of Chinese fisherfolk and the construction of artificial islands by China had caused severe environmental damage, violating their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. The petition relied heavily on the findings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s 2016 Arbitral Award, which addressed the environmental impact of these activities.

However, the case took an unexpected turn when nineteen of the fisherfolk-petitioners submitted affidavits retracting their support for the petition. These affidavits revealed that the fisherfolk claimed they were misinformed about the nature of the case, believing it was directed against foreign entities causing environmental damage, rather than Philippine government agencies. This development raised serious questions about the informed consent of the petitioners and the ethical responsibilities of their legal representatives.

The Supreme Court, in its resolution, addressed several critical aspects of environmental litigation and legal ethics. The Court reiterated the nature of a writ of kalikasan, emphasizing that it is an extraordinary remedy available to protect the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. According to Rule 7, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases:

SECTION 1. Nature of the writ. — The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

The Court also cited Paje v. Casiño, emphasizing that the environmental damage must be of such magnitude as to transcend political and territorial boundaries. The unlawful act or omission must be that of a public official, employee, or private entity, affecting the inhabitants of at least two cities or provinces. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for parties seeking the writ to substantiate their claims with sufficient evidence. While the exact quantum of evidence is not specifically defined, petitioners must present relevant and material evidence, including affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence, and scientific studies.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that environmental advocacy requires not only passion but also responsibility. Environmental advocates must possess the professionalism and capability to carry their cause forward, ensuring they can substantiate their allegations with credible evidence. The imminence or emergency of an ecological disaster does not excuse litigants from their responsibility to prepare and substantiate their petitions adequately.

Turning to the issue of legal representation, the Supreme Court scrutinized the actions of the petitioners’ counsels, emphasizing their duty to ensure informed consent and diligent representation. The Court cited Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court, which governs the withdrawal of attorneys:

SECTION 26. Change of attorneys. — An attorney may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court. He may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding, without the consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change shall be given to the adverse party.

The Court noted that a counsel may withdraw from a case only with the client’s written consent or for a good cause. Canon 22, Rule 22.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility outlines the circumstances under which a lawyer may withdraw without the client’s conformity, including when the client pursues an illegal course of conduct or fails to pay fees.

However, the Court found that the counsels’ attempt to withdraw without adequately ensuring their clients’ understanding and consent was a violation of their ethical duties. The Court emphasized that the withdrawal of counsel should not compromise the interests of the remaining fisherfolk-petitioners, and it is the counsel’s responsibility to maintain open communication with their clients throughout the legal proceedings.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court granted the motion to withdraw the petition, dismissing the case without ruling on the substantive issues. However, the Court issued a stern warning to the petitioners’ counsels, emphasizing the importance of their duties and obligations under the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court’s decision underscores the need for environmental advocates to balance their passion for protecting the environment with their ethical responsibilities to their clients, ensuring that legal actions are pursued with informed consent and diligent representation.

FAQs

What was the main legal issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the petition for writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus should be dismissed due to the retraction of support by several fisherfolk-petitioners, and whether the petitioners’ counsels had fulfilled their ethical duties in representing their clients.
What is a writ of kalikasan?	A writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary legal remedy available to protect the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology from environmental damage of such magnitude as to affect the inhabitants of two or more cities or provinces. It aims to provide judicial relief where other enforcement mechanisms have fallen short.
What is a writ of continuing mandamus?	A writ of continuing mandamus is a special civil action used to compel a government agency or officer to perform a duty specifically enjoined by law, particularly in connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law, rule, or regulation.
Why did the fisherfolk-petitioners retract their support for the petition?	The fisherfolk-petitioners claimed they were misinformed about the nature of the case, believing it was directed against foreign entities causing environmental damage, rather than Philippine government agencies. They stated that they did not fully understand the implications of the petition when they signed it.
What are the ethical duties of a lawyer in representing clients?	A lawyer has a duty to ensure informed consent from their clients, meaning that clients fully understand the nature and implications of the legal actions being taken on their behalf. Lawyers must also provide diligent representation, maintaining open communication with their clients throughout the legal proceedings.
What are the grounds for a lawyer to withdraw from a case?	A lawyer may withdraw from a case with the client’s written consent or for a good cause, such as when the client pursues an illegal course of conduct or fails to pay fees. However, the withdrawal must not compromise the interests of the client.
What evidence is required to support a petition for a writ of kalikasan?	Parties seeking a writ of kalikasan must present relevant and material evidence, including affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence, scientific studies, and, if possible, object evidence to substantiate their claims of environmental damage.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court granted the motion to withdraw the petition and dismissed the case without ruling on the substantive issues. However, the Court issued a stern warning to the petitioners’ counsels, emphasizing the importance of their ethical duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the complexities inherent in environmental litigation and the critical role of legal ethics in ensuring justice and fairness. It underscores the importance of informed consent and diligent representation, particularly when representing vulnerable communities in cases with far-reaching implications. It is a warning for legal counsels to always be truthful in dealing with their clients, especially if they do not have a full grasp of the situation.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: MONICO A. ABOGADO ET. AL. VS. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, G.R. No. 246209, September 03, 2019