WHEREFORE, the Motions for Intervention filed by SAMAHAN, et al. and PAMALAKAYA, et al. are DENIED without prejudice to a separate proceeding they may file against petitioners or other parties. (B) UPAs Motion prays for a clarification of Item 8 in the fallo of MMDA, quoted below: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 28, 2005 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 76528 and SP No. 74944 and the September 13, 2002 Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 1851-99 are AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATIONS in view of subsequent developments or supervening events in the case. The fallo of the RTC Decision shall now read: x x x x (8) The MMDA, as the lead agency and implementor of programs and projects for flood control projects and drainage services in Metro Manila, in coordination with the DPWH, DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), and other agencies, shall dismantle and remove all structures, constructions, and other encroachments established or built in violation of RA 7279, and other applicable laws along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Parañaque-Zapote, Las Piñas) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and connecting waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. The DPWH, as the principal implementor of programs and projects for flood control services in the rest of the country more particularly in Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna, in coordination with the DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, HUDCC, and other concerned government agencies, shall remove and demolish all structures, constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other applicable laws along the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other rivers, connecting waterways, and esteros that discharge wastewater into the Manila Bay. Movants raise their concerns about Metropolitan Manila Development Authoritys (MMDAs) summary dismantling of houses and evictioa of the urban poor under the Metro Gwapo Project. They claim to be under continuous threat under this project, as the MMDA does not furnish prior notification. Neither does the MMDA hold any consultations or provide relocation areas. They aver that, as a result, their rights under Republic Act No. (RA) 7279 or the Lina Law are in danger of being violated. We agree with petitioners that the judgment on the main case has already attained finality and, thus, the injunctive relief being sought no longer exists. Even Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is explicit that the motion to intervene may be filed at any time before the rendition of judgment by the trial court. The same rule applies to petitions before the Court. The motion to intervene must be filed before rendition of judgment; otherwise, the motion is proscribed. The assailed decision was promulgated on December 18, 2008, while the Motion for Intervention was filed only on February 16, 2009. Hence, the motion must perforce be denied. We take judicial notice, however, of the fact that the eviction and dismantling that the MMDA will undertake stand to affect thousands of families. We, thus, clarify the directive we gave in MMDA to allay fears that the MMDA now has a court order to evict families without due process. This Court has described in part the role of the MMDA in MMDA as follows: The mandate of the MMDA and DPWH on flood control and drainage services shall include the removal of structures, constructions, and encroachments built along rivers, waterways, and esteros (drainages) in violation of RA 7279, PD 1067, and other pertinent laws. What violations are referred to in the preceding paragraph? What are the standards that must be observed in carrying out the removal of illegal structures, constructions, and encroachments? We reproduce the relevant provisions below: (1) Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1067[8] defines the distance that must be observed when it comes to structures, constructions, and encroachments built along waterways. Article 51 lays down the limitation, viz: The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the seas and lakes throughout their entire length and within a zone of three (3) meters in urban areas, twenty (20) meters in agricultural areas, and forty (40) meters in forest areas, along their margins are subject to the easement of public use in the interest of recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing, and salvage. No person shall be allowed to stay in this zone longer than what is necessary for recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing, or salvage or to build structures of any kind. (Emphasis supplied.) (2) RA 7279 or the Lina Law, meanwhile, provides for rules to be adhered to in cases of eviction and demolition: SECTION 28. Eviction and Demolition. - Eviction or demolition as a practice shall be discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed under the following situations: (a) When persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds; (b) When government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented; or
Posted on: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 08:47:38 +0000