THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 192692. June 17, 2020.]

REYNALDO DELA CRUZ and CATALINO C. FELIPE , petitioners, vs.

LEOPOLDO V. PARUMOG, GUARDIAN ANGEL ETERNAL GARDEN,
and MUNICIPALITY OF GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, represented by HON.
POCHOLO M. DIZON, respondents.

DECISION

GAERLAN, J : p

The Case
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
Court against the February 26, 2010 Decision 1 and the June 25, 2010 Resolution 2 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 88238, which reversed the Decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 31 of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, in a case for
injunction.
Antecedents
Respondent Leopoldo V. Parumog (Parumog) sought to build the Guardian
Angel Eternal Garden memorial park on a parcel of land owned by him and located at
Barangay Cavite, Guimba, Nueva Ecija. To implement his proposal, Parumog sought
the required permits and clearances from respondent Municipality of Guimba Local
Government Unit (Guimba LGU) and the local government unit of Barangay Cavite
(Barangay LGU). 3
However, Parumog's proposal was opposed by the owners of the lots adjoining
the proposed memorial park site, including petitioners Reynaldo Dela Cruz and Catalino
C. Felipe, who filed a complaint for injunction with prayer for temporary restraining order
(TRO), dated June 15, 2004, 4 seeking to stop the construction of the memorial park.
Alongside Parumog, the Guimba LGU was also impleaded as a defendant for allowing
the project through its Resolution No. 33-04, despite the alleged violations of petitioners'
rights to health and a balanced ecology. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No.
1332-G and raffled off to Branch 31 of the RTC of Guimba. On June 25, 2004, the trial
court granted petitioners' prayer for a TRO. 5
Parumog and the Guimba LGU answered that Resolution No. 33-04 was
approved and issued only after the former had complied with all the requirements for
the establishment of a memorial park under the pertinent regulations. Furthermore, the
project was approved by the Sangguniang Barangay of Cavite, Guimba, through its
Kapasyahan Blg. 02-2004. It was likewise approved by a majority of the adjoining
residents 6 — petitioners included — during a consultation with personnel from the
Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), as shown by their signatures in a manifesto entitled "Pag-
endorso at Aming Suporta sa Binabalak ni G. Leopoldo V. Parumog na Gawing
Memorial Park ang Kanyang Lote sa Barangay Cavite, Guimba, Nueva Ecija." 7 They
likewise maintained that petitioners' fears of environmental pollution to be caused by the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 memorial park were unfounded since the park would observe the proper procedures
and standards for ground burials. Parumog and the Guimba LGU further prayed for the
lifting of the temporary restraining order and the dismissal of the complaint, as well as
an award of exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.
After due hearing and consideration of the parties' pleadings on the application
for writ of preliminary injunction, the trial court found "serious legal flaws in the legality of
Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 33-04." It therefore issued an Order, dated July 21,
2004, granting the application. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which
was denied in an Order, dated November 5, 2004. 8 Pre-trial was then conducted,
where the parties agreed on "the existence of TCT No. NT-3373 in the name of the
defendant Leopoldo V. Parumog which covers the property in question." 9 The case
then proceeded to trial on the merits.
The Ruling of the Trial Court
In a Decision dated September 29, 2006, 10 the trial court ruled in favor of Dela
Cruz, making the injunction against the construction of the memorial park permanent.
The trial court observed that Resolution No. 33-04 merely reclassified the
proposed memorial park site into commercial land. It did not have the effect of
designating the land as a burial ground. The trial court further noted that Barangay
Cavite was not among the designated burial areas under the local zoning ordinance of
Guimba; therefore, for the construction of Parumog's proposed memorial park to
proceed, the Sangguniang Bayan of Guimba had to amend its municipal zoning
ordinance. Since Resolution No. 33-04 had no such effect, it cannot, by itself, be
considered an approval of the proposed memorial park. Furthermore, a municipal board
resolution cannot amend a municipal ordinance. Nevertheless, the defect was cured by
the Sangguniang Bayan's passage on October 25, 2004, of Ordinance No. 4-04, which
introduced the necessary amendments to the municipal zoning ordinance.
The trial court thus considered the issue of whether the enactment of said
amendatory ordinance satisfied the requirements set by the municipal zoning
ordinance, i.e., whether the amendment was subjected to public hearing and was
approved by either the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) or the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Nueva Ecija. 11 The court found that while there was
sufficient evidence that public hearings were conducted, there was no proof that the
amendatory ordinance was approved by the HLURB or the SP of Nueva Ecija. There
being no proper amendment of the municipal zoning ordinance to include Barangay
Cavite as a burial ground area, the injunction against Parumog's memorial park project
was maintained by the trial court. 12
The Ruling of the CA
Acting on the appeal filed by Parumog and the Guimba LGU, the CA reversed the
trial court's decision and dismissed the complaint for injunction. Reducing the
arguments raised by the appeal to the main issue of whether Ordinance No. 4-04 was
approved by the HLURB or the SP of Nueva Ecija, the appellate court found that
Parumog and the Guimba LGU were able to submit a copy of Kapasyahan Blg. 181-S-
2004 issued by the SP of Nueva Ecija, which categorically states that the provincial
legislature approved the act of the Guimba municipal board. The said Kapasyahan
reads:
TANGGAPAN NG SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN
KIMIS NG KATITIKAN NG IKA-21
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 PANGKARANIWANG PULONG NG SANGGUNIANG
PANLALAWIGAN NA GINANAP SA
PANLALAWIGANG BULWAGANG PULUNGAN,
PANLALAWIGANG KAPITOLYO, LUNGSOD NG
PALAYAN NUONG
DISYEMBRE 06, 2004
xxx xxx xxx
KAPASIYAHAN BLG. 181-S-2004
SAPAGKAT, sa ilalim ng Kodigo ng Lokal na Pamahalaan ng 1991,
Kabanata 3 Pangkat 56, ay itinatadhana ang kapangyarihan ng Sannguniang
[sic] Panlalawigan upang siyasatin at pag-aralan kung naaayon at napapaloob
sa kapangyarihan ng mga Sangguniang Bayan/Lungsod na kanilang
nasasakupan, ang mga pinagtibay na Kapasiyahan o Kautusan,
SAPAGKAT, batay sa masusing pag-aaral ng Lupon sa Kapasiyahan at
Kautusan, ang mga sumusunod na Kapasiyahan at Kautusan ay naaayon at
napapaloob sa mga alituntuning itinatakda ng batas:
DAHIL DITO, sa mungkahi ng Kgg. na Kagawad Allan A. Gamilla, na
pinangalawahan ng Kgg. na Kagawad Rudy J. de Leon, napagpasiyahan ng
Kapulungan ng [sic] PAGTIBAYIN at ideklarang napapaloob sa kapangyarihang
taglay ng Sangguniang Bayan/Panlungsod ang mga sumusunod na
kapasiyahan:
Kap. Blg. 83-s-2004 (Ord. No. 04-s-2004), na may petsa Oktubre 25,
2004, na pinagtibay ng Sangguniang Bayan ng Guim[b]a, Nueva Ecija. 13
Given this explicit approval by the SP, the appellate court held that "there is no
basis for the trial court to rule that 'the said amendment (referring to SB Ordinance No.
4-04 dated October 25, 2004) is not yet effected because of non compliance [sic] with
the requirement of the law for the approval/authentication of the same by the HLURB or
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Nueva Ecija.'" 14
The CA also held that Dela Cruz and Felipe have been precluded from claiming
that they were not consulted before Resolution No. 33-04 converting Parumog's
property for commercial purposes was passed, for they did not appeal from the RTC
decision, and hence could not be made to benefit from the appeal filed by Parumog and
the Guimba LGU.
The Issues
Dela Cruz and Felipe moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied in the
assailed June 25, 2010 resolution; hence, this petition, which raises the following
issues: 1) Whether or not the CA erred in barring Dela Cruz and Felipe from raising the
issue of non-consultation on the ground that they cannot be benefited by the appeal
filed by Parumog and the Guimba LGU; 2) Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the
trial court ruling on the ground of the validity and due approval of Resolution No. 33-04
and Ordinance No. 4-04; and 3) Whether or not the rights of the adjoining lot owners to
health, a healthful and balanced ecology, and due process were violated. 15
The Ruling of the Court
In an action for injunction, the plaintiff has to show that there is a right in esse that
must be protected; and the act against which the injunction is directed to constitutes a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 violation of such right. 16 Furthermore, injunctive writs cannot be granted at the slightest
sign of an alleged injury. In the antiquated but still leading case of North Negros Sugar
Co. v. Hidalgo, 17 we said that:
. . . An injunction will not be granted when good conscience does not require it,
where it will operate oppressively or contrary to justice, where it is not
reasonable and equitable under the circumstances of the case, or where it will
tend to promote, rather than to prevent, fraud and injustice. . . . ". . . a court of
equity may interfere by injunction to restrain a party from enforcing a legal right
against all equity and conscience. . . ." ". . . The comparative convenience or
inconvenience of the parties from granting or withholding the injunction sought
should be considered, and none should be granted if it would operate
oppressively or inequitably, or contrary to the real justice of the case. This
doctrine is well established."
"The power of the courts to issue injunctions should be exercised with great
caution and only where the reason and necessity therefor are clearly
established; and while this rule has been applied more frequently in the case of
preliminary and mandatory injunctions, it applies to injunctions of all classes,
and to restraining orders. . . ." (citations omitted)
"The writ of injunction will not be awarded in doubtful or new cases not coming
within well-established principles of equity." 18
xxx xxx xxx
[I]njunction, being an equitable remedy, the granting thereof is dependent upon
the sound discretion of the court. It is only in clear cases of abuse of discretion
on the part of the trial judge that review on appeal would be made. "There is no
power the exercise of which is more delicate, which requires greater caution,
deliberation, and sound discretion, or more dangerous in a doubtful case, than
the issuing an injunction; it is the strong arm of equity, that never ought of law
cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages. The right
must be clear, the injury impending or threatened, so as to be averted only by
the protecting preventing process of injunction." 19
Jurisprudence has laid down four essential requisites for the issuance of an
injunctive writ: (1) That the petitioner applicant must have a clear and unmistakable
right; (2) That there is a material and substantial invasion of such right; (3) That there is
an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage; and (4) No
other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of
irreparable injury. 20
In the case at bar, the appellate court found that the trial court abused its
discretion in issuing a permanent injunction against the memorial park project after
finding that the Guimba LGU had passed a valid amendment to its zoning ordinance
which paved the way for the construction of memorial parks in the territory of Barangay
Cavite. Ordinance No. 4-04 provides:
SB ORDINANCE NO. 4-04
October 25, 2004
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF GUIMBA, NUEVA
ECIJA, IN SESSION ASSEMBLED.
Section 1. Title and Authority. — This ordinance shall be cited as the
amendatory ordinance on the proposed location of new cemeteries in Guimba,
Nueva Ecija, and is enacted pursuant to the provision of Section 46
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 (Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance) of Municipal Ordinance No. 15, series
of 2000, otherwise known as the Local Zoning Ordinance of Guimba, Nueva
Ecija.
Section 2. Proposed site of new cemetery Barangay Cavite, being
within the urban area zone classification, is hereby included as proposed
location of new cemeteries in Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the Development Master
Plan of Guimba, Nueva Ecija (2001-2005).
Section 3. Repealing Clause. — All ordinances, rules, regulations
and promulgations in conflict with the provisions of this resolution are hereby
repealed, reversed, amended or modified accordingly.
Section 4. Effectivity. — This ordinance shall take effect upon
approval by the [H]LURB or the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Nueva Ecija. 21
It is clear from the quoted passage that all the ordinance does is to allow new
cemeteries to be built in Barangay Cavite. There is nothing in the ordinance amounting
to an approval or clearance of Parumog's proposed memorial park project, which must
still comply with the applicable regulations, specifically HLURB Resolution No. 681-00,
or the Amended Rules and Regulations for Memorial Parks/Cemeteries. Section 2 of
said HLURB Resolution sets out the process and documentary requirements for the
approval of a memorial park or cemetery project, viz.:
SECTION 2. Application for Approval of Memorial Park/Cemetery Plan. —
Every registered owner or developer of a parcel of land who wishes to convert
the same into a memorial park/cemetery shall apply with the Board or
city/municipality concerned for the approval of the memorial park/cemetery plan
by filing the following:
I. Approval of the Preliminary Development Plan
For all projects located in cities or municipalities with or without a Land Use
Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance, a preliminary approval shall be required. Copies
of the following shall be submitted in duplicate to the city/municipality
concerned.
A. Site Development Plan/Scheme to be approved should be accessible to
Persons With Disabilities (PWDs) in accordance with BP 344 otherwise known
as the Accessibility Law and the Magna Carta for disabled persons (RA 7277)
reflecting therein the layout of streets, pathways, plots, parking areas, support
facilities, signages and other features in relation to existing site condition using
a scale ranging from 1:200 to 1:2,000 duly signed and sealed by a licensed
environmental planner.
B. 2 sets of the following documents duly signed and sealed by a licensed
geodetic engineer:
1. Vicinity map/location map at a scale of 1:10,000 with a radius of 500
meters from the project site indicating existing utilities such as main traffic
arteries, drainage system and outfall, etc. and community facilities like church,
school and housing areas among others.
2. Topographic Plan to include existing conditions as follows:
a. Property boundary lines, bearing and distances;
b. Streets and easements, right-of-way width and elevation on and adjacent
to the project;
c. Ground elevation/contour of the site; for ground that slopes less than 2%,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 indicate spot elevations at all breaks in grade, along all drainage channels and
at selected points not more than 30 meters apart in all directions; for ground
that slopes more than 2%, indicate contours with an interval of not more than
0.5 meter for more detailed preparation of plans and construction drawings.
d. Other conditions on the land: water courses, marshes, rock outcrops,
wooded areas, isolated preservable trees 0.30 meters or more in diameter,
houses and other significant features;
e. Proposed public improvements: highways or other major improvements
planned by public authorities for future construction on or near the project.
C. Zoning Certification issued by HLURB or city/municipality concerned.
D. Certified true copy of Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) or
Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) duly issued by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
E. Certified true copy of conversion order or exemption clearance from the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
F. Certified true copy of Title and Survey Plan.
Approval of the preliminary memorial park/cemetery plan shall be valid only for
a period of 180 days from date of approval. A revalidation can be availed of
only once after said period.
II. Approval of Final Memorial Park/Cemetery Plan
After the preliminary approval of the Memorial Park/Cemetery the owner or
developer shall proceed with the preparation and submission to the
city/municipality concerned in duplicate the following:
A. Final Memorial Park/Cemetery Plan consisting of the site development
plan at any of the following scales: 1:200 or 1:1,000 or any scale not exceeding
1:2,000 indicating the following duly signed and sealed by a licensed
environmental planner:
1. Lay-out of roads right-of-way width and gradient, easements and similar
data for alleys, if any.
2. Plot boundaries, numbers, total land area and block numbers; (verified
survey returns of mother title, sections and blocks including number of lots per
block in each section and technical descriptions of road lots, open spaces,
facilities, and blocks).
3. Site date, total land area, number of saleable plots, typical plot size,
areas allocated for roads and pathways, and other facilities amenities.
B. Engineering plans duly signed and sealed by a licensed civil engineer
passed on applicable Engineering Code and Design Criteria in accordance with
the following:
1. Profile derived from existing topographic map duly signed and sealed by
a geodetic engineer showing the vertical control, designed grade, curb
elements and all information needed for construction.
2. Typical roadway sections showing relative dimensions and sloped of
pavements, gutters, sidewalks, shoulders, benching and others.
3. Details of roadway showing the required thickness of pavement, sub-
grade treatment and sub-base on the design analysis.
C. Storm drainage duly signed and sealed by a licensed sanitary engineer
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 of civil engineer:
1. Profile showing the hydraulic gradients and properties of the main lines
including structures in relation with the road grade line.
2. Details of drainage and miscellaneous structures such as various types
of manholes, catch basins, inlets (curb, gutter and drop), culverts and channel
lining.
D. Centralized or combined from storm and sewer system duly signed and
sealed by licensed sanitary engineer.
E. Site grading plan duly signed and sealed by a licensed civil engineer.
Plans with the finished contour lines superimposed on the existing ground the
limits of earthwork embankment slope, cut slopes, surface drainage, drainage
outfalls and others.
F. Electrical plan and specifications duly signed and sealed by a licensed
professional electrical engineer and duly approved by the city/municipal
electrical engineer.
G. Landscaping plan indicating plant/tree species and other natural/man-
made landscaping features, e.g., lagoon, garden, benches, etc. duly signed and
sealed by a licensed landscape architect.
H. Summary of Project Study indicating market, source/s of fund, statement
of income, cash flow and work program.
I. Certified True Copy of Title or other evidence of ownership or intent to
sell and authority to develop signed by the owner, Tax Declaration and current
real estate tax receipt.
J. Clearances/Permits/Certifications from other agencies applicable to the
Project:
1. Clearances/Permits from National Water Resources Board (NWRB):
a. Clearance stating that the memorial park/cemetery is not located on
ground where the water table is not higher than 4.50 meters below the ground
surface.
b. Water permit whenever a well within the project site shall be dug.
c. Permit to operate the wall.
2. Certified True Copy of Conversion Order or Exemption Clearance from
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) authorizing a change in use from
agricultural to non-agricultural, where applicable.
3. Permit from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
when necessary, e.g., when opening an access to a controlled traffic artery.
4. Initial and operational clearances from the Department of Health.
5. Certified True Copy of Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) or
Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) duly issued by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
K. Joint affidavit of owner/developer and licensed environmental planner
that the memorial park/cemetery plan conforms to the standards and
requirements of these rules and that development thereof shall be made in
accordance with the program submitted to the Board or city/municipality
concerned.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 L. List of names of duly licensed professional who signed the plans and
other similar documents in connection with application filed with HLURB or
city/municipality concerned indicating the following information:
1. Surname;
2. First Name;
3. Middle Name;
4. In case of married women professional also their maiden name; and
5. Professional license number, date of issue and expiration of its validity;
6. Professional tax receipt and date of issue.
If the application for the project is physically feasible and the plan complies with
the zoning ordinance of the city or municipality where it is situated and with
these rules, the project shall be issued a development permit issued by the
Board or city/municipality concerned upon payment of the prescribed
processing fee and under such conditions as may be imposed by the Board or
city/municipality concerned upon payment of the prescribed processing fee and
under such conditions as may be imposed by the Board or city/municipality
concerned. A final approval/development permit shall be valid for a period of 2
years from date of issue, however, if physical development such as clearing and
grubbing, road excavation, filling and compaction, etc. is not commenced within
said period, the grantee of the permit may apply for its revalidation within the
next succeeding year.
If development permit expires, no development shall be allowed unless a new
application for approval is filed.
While Parumog did obtain a Locational Clearance from the Guimba LGU, 22 there
is no indication in the record that Parumog has complied with all the other requirements
set by HLURB Resolution No. 681-00. During trial, Parumog submitted the following
exhibits:
x x x Exhibit "1", Kapasiyahan Blg. 02-2004; Exhibit "1-A", 2nd page;
Exhibit "2", Minutes, Public Hearing; Exhibit "2-A", Signatures; Exhibit "3",
Certification of DTI; Exhibit "4", Certification of Brgy. Captain of Brgy. Cavite;
Exhibit "4-A", Signature of Brgy. Captain; Exhibit "5", Certification of Municipal
Health Officer; Exhibit "5-A", Signature; Exhibit "6" Certification of HLURB;
Exhibit "6-A", Signature; Exhibit "7", Development Permit; Exhibit "7-A",
Signature of Editha U. Barrameda; Exhibit "8" — Certificate Registration; Exhibit
"8-A", Signature of Editha U. Barrameda; Exhibit "9", License to Sell; Exhibit "9-
A", Signature; Exhibit "10", Environment Bureau Certification Indorsement;
Exhibit "11", Environmental Compliance Certificate; Exhibit "11-A", Page 2;
Exhibits "12", "12-A", "12-B" and "12-C", Affidavit of Signature of residents of
Brgy. Cavite (public consultation); Exhibits "13", "13-A", "13-C", "13-D" and "13-
E", Finding of DENR, Mines and Geo Science Bureau; Exhibit "14", Certification
of Municipal Engineer; Exhibit "14-A", Signature of Municipal Engineer Jose
Mateo[.]
xxx xxx xxx
Exhibit "20" — the Kapasyahan Blg. 181, s-2004 by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan ng Nueva Ecija which affirms in toto Kapasyahan Blg. 02-2004 of
the Sangguniang Barangay of Brgy. Cavite, Guimba, Nueva Ecija by way of re-
adopting the same in the Sangguniang Bayan Kapasyahan Blg. 33-04;
Exhibit "20-A" — the Certification affirming the validity of said Resolution
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Nueva Ecija duly signed by the Kalihim ng
Sangguniang Panlalawigan Atty. Tomas F. Lahom III;
Exhibit "21" — the Local Environmental Clearance Certificate (LECC)
from the office of the governor granting certification to the defendant to pursue
his proposal Memorial Park Project of the Guardian Angel Eternal Garden to be
operated by Engr. Leopoldo V. Parumog dated November 15, 2004 and duly
signed by Hon. Tomas N. Joson III, Governor of Nueva Ecija;
Exhibits "22" and "22-A" — the Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 83-4
dated October 25, 2004 consisting of two (2) pages which grants to Engr.
Leopoldo V. Parumog the prosecution of the project known as Guardian Angel
Eternal Garden on the basis of the Resolution of Local Zoning Revenue
Committee (LZRC) as additional proposed location of new cemeteries as
identified in the development master plan of Guimba, Nueva Ecija;
Exhibits "23", "23-A" and "23-B" — the application for Land Use
Conversion involving a parcel of land situated at Brgy. Cavite, Guimba, Nueva
Ecija with an agricultural area of 2.2828 hectares and covered by TCT No. N-
3372 by the proponent of the project Engr. Leopoldo V. Parumog address to
the Department of Agrarian Reform, regional office at San Fernando,
Pampanga which grants the conversion of the land in question from agricultural
to commercial classification and that consequently defendant has been issued
TCT No. N-3372 and consequently a Tax Declaration as incidental thereto
which is referred herein and marked as Exhibit "24";
xxx xxx xxx
x x x Exhibit "25" of the defendants, which is an Order issued by
Lormelyn E. Claudio, Regional Director of the DENR, Environmental
Management Bureau, addressed to Engr. Leopoldo V. Parumog, which states
as follows:
On 27 February 2004, this Office received a complaint on
the proposed memorial park project from Hon. Narciso Nario. An
Investigation was conducted in response to the complaint on 09
March 2004. Findings revealed that you started development
activities without an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC),
which is in violation of Philippine Environment Impact Statement
System.
A Notice of Violation (NOV) was issued to the developer
on 30 March 2004 A series of meetings and public consultation
was conducted to discuss and resolve the complaint.
After complying with requirements, an ECC was issued to
the project on 1 June 2004.
However, a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Preliminary
Injunction was issued by Hon. Napoleon R. Sta. Romana to discontinue the
construction and development of the memorial park known as the Guardian
Angles [sic] Eternal Garden located at Brgy. Cavite, Guimba, Nueva Ecija.
As such, by virtue of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued 21 July
2004, the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) with Reference Code
No. 03NE 040305 140214A is hereby SUSPENDED until such time the
complaint is resolved.
You are likewise enjoined to attend the Technical Conference on 05 Sep.
2005 at EMB R3 Office 4/F Mel-Vi Bldg., Olongapo-Gapan Rd., City of San
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 Fernando, Pampanga.
SO ORDERED. 15 Aug. 2005. 23
The foregoing exhibits clearly show that Parumog is still in the process of
obtaining all necessary regulatory approvals and submitting his memorial park project
proposal to the Guimba LGU for preliminary approval. It should not be disputed that the
Guimba LGU has the authority to make such approval, as this is clearly provided for not
only in the aforequoted Section 2 of HLURB Resolution No. 681-00, but also in Section
447 of the Local Government Code, which vests the Guimba LGU, through its
Sangguniang Bayan, with the following powers:
(2) (vii) Adopt a comprehensive land use plan for the municipality: Provided,
That the formulation, adoption, or modification of said plan shall be in
coordination with the approved provincial comprehensive land use plan;
(2) (viii) Reclassify land within the jurisdiction of the municipality, subject to the
pertinent provisions of this Code;
(2) (vii) Adopt a comprehensive land use plan for the municipality: Provided,
That the formulation, adoption, or modification of said plan shall be in
coordination with the approved provincial comprehensive land use plan;
(2) (viii) Reclassify land within the jurisdiction of the municipality, subject to the
pertinent provisions of this Code;
xxx xxx xxx
(4) (ix) Regulate the establishment, operation, and maintenance of funeral
parlors and the burial or cremation of the dead, subject to existing laws, rules
and regulations.
The Court now goes back to the requisites for an injunctive writ, viewed in the
light of the facts established in the record and the allegations of the complaint. As for
the first requisite, jurisprudence affirms the existence of the constitutional rights to
health, healthful ecology, and due process, which are enforceable without need of
legislation. 24 However, as for the second requisite, i.e., the existence of a material and
substantial invasion of such right, the complaint miserably fails. The records clearly
show that the ultimate act complained of and sought to be enjoined by petitioners — the
construction of the Guardian Angel Eternal Garden — has not happened yet. 25 It must
be reiterated that neither Resolution No. 33-04 nor Ordinance No. 4-04 serves as a final
approval of Parumog's proposal and there is nothing in the record to show that
Parumog's proposal to build the Guardian Angel Eternal Garden has been given final
clearance and approval by the Sangguniang Bayan of Guimba in accordance with
HLURB Resolution No. 681-00. Without final approval from the Guimba LGU,
Parumog's proposal cannot proceed; hence, there cannot be a material and substantial
invasion of petitioners' rights, for the realization of the very act alleged to be an invasion
of such rights remains contingent upon the submission of the final memorial park plan
and the approval thereof by the Guimba LGU.
Furthermore, both courts a quo have found that petitioners actively participated in
the public hearings conducted in the process of reclassifying Parumog's property as a
commercial area. They have made their objections known to the Guimba LGU, which,
nevertheless, went ahead and reclassified the area to allow the memorial park to be
built. 26 Thus, We concur in the conclusion of both courts a quo that petitioners were not
deprived of due process in the matter of the reclassification of Parumog's property.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com

 Likewise, the fourth requisite, i.e., the lack of another ordinary, speedy, and
adequate remedy to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury has not been satisfied as
well. At the risk of being repetitive, it must be reiterated that, under HLURB Resolution
No. 681-00, Parumog must submit a preliminary development plan, which must be
approved by the LGU. Once the preliminary development plan has been approved,
Parumog must then submit a final memorial park plan which must likewise be approved
by the LGU. There is no indication in the records that the Guimba LGU has already
approved any preliminary development plan or final memorial park plan submitted by
Parumog. Among the required components of a final memorial park plan are:
J. Clearances/Permits/Certifications from other agencies applicable to the
Project:
1. Clearances/Permits from National Water Resources Board (NWRB)
a. Clearance stating that the memorial park/cemetery is not
located on ground where the water table is not higher than 4.50
meters below the ground surface.
b. Water permit whenever a well within the project site shall
be dug.
c. Permit to operate the well.
2. Certified True Copy of Conversion Order or Exemption Clearance from
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) authorizing a change in use from
agricultural to non-agricultural, where applicable.
3. Permit from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
when necessary, e.g., when opening an access to a controlled traffic artery.
4. Initial and operational clearances from the Department of Health.
5. Certified True Copy of Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) or
Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) duly issued by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Clearly, petitioners may still air their health and ecological concerns over the project
before the DENR, DAR or the DPWH, since Parumog still has to obtain permits from
these agencies if his memorial park project is to proceed. While, it may be said that the
petitioners' grievances have already been heard by the Guimba LGU, there is no
showing that they have to completely exhausted their remedies with the pertinent
agencies of national government. Verily, records show that Parumog has been
summoned to appear before the DENR-EMB because of a complaint filed against him
by Justice Narciso Nario. There is nothing preventing petitioners from airing similar
complaints before the DENR-EMB or other concerned agencies enumerated in the
HLURB Resolution No. 681-00.
All told, the CA did not err in dismissing the complaint for injunction, as petitioners
have failed to prove that their circumstances warrant the grant of such an extraordinary
remedy.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES , the present petition is hereby
DENIED. The February 26, 2010 Decision and the June 25, 2010 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 88238 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, Gesmundo, Carandang and Zalameda, JJ., concur.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 179-193; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta with the
concurrence of Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Florito S. Macalino.

2. Id. at 253.

3. Id. at 180.

4. Id. at 180-181.

5. Id.

6. Id. at 181-182.

7. Id.

8. Id. at 183.

9. Id. at 184.

10. Penned by Presiding Judge Napoleon R. Sta. Romana. Id. at 295-314.

11. Id. at 311.

12. Id.

13. Id. at 27-28, 114-115.

14. Id. at 115.

15. Id. at 116-117.

16. City of Lapu-Lapu v. Phil. Economic Zone Authority, 748 Phil. 473 (2014).

17. 63 Phil. 664 (1936).

18. Id. at 678.

19. Id. at 788.

20. Bicol Medical Center v. Botor, 819 Phil. 447 (2017), citing St. James College of Parañaque
v. Equitable PCI Bank, 641 Phil. 452, 466 (2010), Biñan Steel Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, 439 Phil. 688, 703-704 (2002) and Hutchison Ports Philippines Ltd. v. Subic
Bay Metropolitan Authority, 393 Phil. 843, 859 (2000).

21. Rollo, pp. 191-192.

22. Id. at 25-26.

23. Id. at 304-306.

24. On the right to health, see Spouses Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., 732 Phil. 1 (2014). On the right
to a healthful and balanced ecology, see Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 101083, July
30, 1993; Republic v. Pagadian City Timber Co., Inc., 587 Phil. 42 (2008); and the Rules
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, April 13, 2010). The
existence and enforceability of the right to due process is too fundamental to require
citation.

25. Rollo, pp. 295-296.

26. Id. at 311-314.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com