SC Issues Show Cause Order against Former Boac Mayor for Repeatedly Filing Defective Pleadings
March 4, 2024
The Supreme Court is duty-bound to enforce applicable rules to avoid further congestion of clogged court dockets.
Thus stressed the Supreme Court En Banc, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Pedrito M. Nepomuceno (Nepomuceno), former mayor of Boac, Marinduque, and ordering him to show cause within a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice why he should not be cited in contempt for his repeated filing of defective petitions before the Court involving the same subject matter.
On December 5, 2023, the Court dismissed Nepomuceno’s petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus (2023 Petition). Nepomuceno claimed that the people of Boac suffered floods due to the Boac River Reclamation Project, which, according to him, was not subjected to the Environmental Impact Analysis of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
The 2023 Petition, however, was found non-compliant with the requirements under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. The Court found that Nepomuceno failed to submit proper verification; failed to pay the required docket and legal fees; failed to show proof of service on the adverse parties; failed to file the required number of plain copies of the petition; and failed to submit an electronic copy of the petition through electronic mail within 24 hours from the filing of the hard copy. Further, Nepomuceno’s claims in the 2023 Petition were not supported by any evidence.
The Court thus dismissed the 2023 Petition, prompting Nepomuceno to file the present motion for reconsideration.
The Court, however, found that the motion for reconsideration simply restated the contents of the 2023 Petition and ignored the ruling of the Court on the procedural flaws identified.
The motion, which was unsigned and undated, merely requested for the Court’s understanding and leniency instead of curing the 2023 Petition’s procedural defects.
The Court also noted that the present motion was already the fourth time that Nepomuceno filed a defective pleading before the Court.
Prior to the 2023 Petition, Nepomuceno had filed a petition in 2021 for a writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus involving the same Boac River Reclamation Project (2021 Petition). The 2021 Petition was dismissed by the Court for being insufficient in form and substance, with defects similar to those identified by the Court in the 2023 Petition.
The Court further found that Nepomuceno admitted in the 2021 Petition that he had previously filed before the Court a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan where he notably stated that no river is being reclaimed.
The Court held that Nepomuceno has shown a propensity to repeatedly flout procedural rules without any valid justification despite having his attention directed to the applicable rules on separate occasions.
Citing its 2011 ruling in D.M. Wenceslao and Associates, Inc. v. City of Parañaque, the Court stressed that procedural rules are “not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party’s substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed.”
Thus, to protect the orderly administration of justice and to avoid the unnecessary clogging of the Court’s dockets, the Court cannot let Nepomuceno’s non-compliance pass.
While the Court recognizes that frequent and sustained floods are detrimental to the environment and to society as a whole, it underscored that this does not serve as a license for Nepomuceno to disregard the procedures clearly set out in the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
Unless Nepomuceno can satisfactorily explain his actions, the same may constitute contempt of court.
The Court added that even if it were to consider the merits of Nepomuceno’s motion, it must nevertheless still be dismissed for being unsupported by evidence.
The Supreme Court Public Information Office will upload a copy of the Decision in G.R. No. 269636 (Nepomuceno v. DPWH Secretary) once it receives the same from the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)