EN BANC [G.R. No. 195482 : June 21, 2011] ELIZA M. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. V. PLACER DOME, INC. "G.R. No. 195482 (ELIZA M. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. PLAC ER DOME, INC.) Nota Bien: If you were to search this case using the above-cited G.R. No., you will see a mere resolution of the Court without any defined statement of facts, issues or ruling. So what I did was to research on the factual antecedents which culminated into this petition. Please, verify it if you cannot understand the following discussions. Antecedent Facts: Placer Dome is the parent corporation of Marcopper Mining Company. It is engaged in the mining operations in Marinduque from 1964 – 1997. In May 2006, Placer Dome merged with Barrick Gold Corporation, a foreign entity. In March 1996, the disaster came about. A fracture in the drainage tunnel of a large pit containing leftover mine tailings led to a discharge of toxic mine waste into the Makulapnit-Boac river system and caused flash floods in areas along the river. Barangay Hinapulan, was buried in six feet of muddy floodwater, causing damage to people and their families, as well as livestock, marine resources and maritime life. Placer Dome entered into a contract with then President Fidel V. Ramos to rehabilitate the waters of Marinduque. It did not reach fruition. Start of Court Process: In 2011, three residents of Marinduque, Eliza M. Hernandez, Mamerto M. Lanete and Godofredo L. Manoy, represented by Father Joaquin Bernas, filed a petition for writ of kalikasan. of kalikasan. In their petition, they argued that said Placer Dome should be held liable for expelling some 2 million cubic meters of toxic industrial waste into the Boac river when a drainage plug holding toxic mining waste from its operations ruptured. The writ of Kalikasan of Kalikasan was granted. In March 2011, the Court issued a resolution which referred the case to the Court of Appeals for hearing, reception of evidence, and rendition of judgment. CA then issued a resolution requiring the petitioners to issue a sub poena against Placer Dome. Issue: After receiving the resolution issued by CA, Barrick Gold, currently the owner of Placer Dome, filed a Clarificatory Manifestation to clarify which court exercises jurisdiction over the case in order to shed light to the procedural paths available to the parties. Supreme Court Resolution
Pursuant to Section 3, Rule VII of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, petitions for the Writ of Kalikasan "shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the Court of Appeals." It was in consonance with this provision that, on 8 March 2011, the Court issued the Resolution which, after granting the Writ of Kalikasan sought by petitioners, referred the case to the CA for hearing, reception of evidence and rendition o f judgment. Considering said referral of the case to the CA, its re-docketing of the petition as CA-G.R. SP No. 00001 and its conduct of proceedings relative thereto, it is imperative that the various motions and incidents filed by the parties, together with the entire records of the case, be likewise referred to said Court in observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and in the interest of the orderly and expeditious conduct of the proceedings in the case.
