G.R. No. 214926 - CRISOSTOMO B. AQUINO, VS. AGUA TIERRA ORO MINA (ATOM) DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & CEO, VIRGILIO A. BOTE.

Ruling

Accordingly, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction on August 31, 2010. [32] On September 23, 2010, Aquino filed an Omnibus Motion praying for the dismissal of the case and the dissolution of the preliminary injunctive writ, reiterating the lack of basis for the grant of injunctive relief based on the spurious nature of ATOM's title, his better right to the seaside lot on the basis of his company's FLAgT, and DENR's primary jurisdiction over the case. Aquino further argued that ATOM failed to post the requisite bond under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, and that the trial court erred in invoking "environmental rules." On November 23, 2010, [33] the RTC issued an Order denying Aquino's Omnibus Motion, ruling primarily that the arguments raised therein have already been addressed in the June 29, 2010 Order. The RTC further held that the writ of preliminary injunction merely implements the no-build provisions of Ordinance No. 2000-131. [34] The RTC reiterated that the overarching purpose of the injunction is to prevent damage to the environment of Boracay, which is a top tourist destination. [35] On January 17, 2011, the RTC issued an Order denying Aquino's motion for reconsideration. [36] As earlier mentioned, Aquino assailed the November 23, 2010 and January 17, 2011 Orders through a Rule 65 petition before the CA, [37] which the appellate court dismissed. The CA ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it granted preliminary injunctive relief to ATOM. ATOM's right to such relief lay not in its ownership of the adjacent parcel, but in its right to a balanced and healthful ecology; and Aquino's construction operations in the seaside lot will harm ATOM's right to enjoy the benefits of Boracay's pristine maritime ecology. [38] The CA also admitted that the seaside lot is foreshore land, which is not subject to private ownership. [39] The CA refused to pass upon Aquino's arguments regarding the primacy of his FLAgT claim and the alleged misreading of Ordinance No. 2000-131, ruling that said matters must be resolved by the RTC in Civil Case No. 8577. [40] The CA also upheld the application of "environmental rules." It held that the RTC was justified in invoking environmental law principles, since the case involves the construction of structures on a foreshore land located in a no-build zone of Boracay. Consequently, the appellate court excused ATOM from the bond requirement; and ruled that the preliminary injunctive writ issued by the RTC can be likened to a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases [41] (RPEC), since both writs operate to enjoin action by any person, for the purpose of preserving the environment, and under the RPEC, no bond shall be required for the issuance of a TEPO. [42] On the issue of jurisdiction, the appellate court again sustained the RTC. It ruled that the DENR's powers over public lands do not conflict with the jurisdiction of regular