Practice question
A complaint seeks recovery of land exclusively for private development. The plaintiff plans the very construction it asks to stop and pleads only financial losses. The judge invokes environmental protection in general, without identifying a pleaded environmental right. Does Aquino support automatic TEPO treatment?
- No; the ultimate objective and allegations must actually support environmental relief
- Yes; every disputed construction is automatically environmental litigation
- Yes; judges may always replace the pleaded commercial claim
- Yes; loss of investment alone proves every TEPO element
- Yes; the location near water conclusively establishes TEPO entitlement
Legal references
- Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, AM09-6-8-SC, Rule2 Sections8–11; Rule6 Sections2–4; Rule19 Sections1–3: https://lawphil.net/courts/supreme/am/am_09-6-8-sc_2010.html
- Aquino v Agua Tierra Oro Mina Development Corporation, GR214926, January25,2023, MAIN opinion, TEPO distinguished from ordinary preliminary injunction: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/jan2023/gr_214926_2023.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.