E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 6 of 40 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65160 team had been created to monitor the cutting and earth balling of the trees. They also emphasized that they immediately complied with the Temporary Environmental Protection Order upon receipt from the trial court and directed private defendants to pursue remedial measures over the affected trees.[31] In its December 3, 2012 Decision,[32] the Regional Trial Court dismissed the consolidated cases. The Regional Trial Court held that Cordillera Global Network and Adajar, et al. possessed the necessary personality to file the environmental cases under the principle of transcendental importance.[33] However, their cases did not fall under any of the exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. Thus, the cases were dismissible on procedural grounds.[34] Moreover, the trial court noted that while their witness, Dr. Michael A. Bengwayan, quantified the effects of removing 182 trees on Luneta Hill, his testimony appeared to be "mere conclusions of fact devoid of any scientific basis"[35] and failed to prove that removing the trees would have a detrimental effect causing irreparable damage to the environment and Baguio City residents.[36] In contrast, Dr. Armando Palijon, a common witness for both parties, testified that removing the trees would not cause irreparable damage to the environment, as the loss would be compensated by SM Investments Corporation's planned green building and the thousands of saplings it planted in Busol Watershed.[37] The trial court also gave weight to the testimony of Engineer Cherry B. Rivera, witness for SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and an environmental engineer who was part of the team that conducted the Environmental Impact Assessment on the Expansion Project. She testified that the mitigation measures in the Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan had accounted for minimizing the project's environmental impact.[38] Likewise, the trial court held that Cordillera Global Network and Adajar, et al. failed to substantiate their claims of irregularities in the cutting and earth-balling permits[39] and building permits[40] issued to Investments Corporation. The trial court also set aside the challenges raised against the amended Environmental Compliance Certificate. It stated that the field of expertise Professor Cecilia M. Austria (Dr. Austria)—who questioned the reliability of the Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan—is zoology, not environmental science. This makes her incompetent to determine lapses in the Environmental Impact Assessment. On the other hand, the trial court found that SM Investments Corporation and its subsidiaries were able to prove that it had complied with the requirements to issue an environmental compliance certificate.[41] The trial court ruled that there was no reason to prevent SM Investments 4/23/2020, 10:52 AM