FILIPINO communities devastated by super Typhoon Odette (Rai) are taking on one of the world’s biggest oil companies.
Sixty-seven residents from the Visayas have filed a legal claim against Shell in the United Kingdom, accusing the British energy giant of contributing to climate change and worsening the storm that destroyed their homes and livelihoods on December 16, 2021.
The case, announced in Quezon City by Greenpeace Philippines and the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC), could become one of the first international lawsuits to use Philippine law in a foreign court to demand accountability for climate-related harm.
The claim: “This battle is for our children.” The lawsuit represents a cross-section of survivors — fishermen, farmers, workers and parents — who lost family members or were injured when the typhoon tore through central Philippines.
Arnold, a fisherman from Bohol, said in a Greenpeace report that he and his teenage son lived under debris for months after the storm destroyed their home. He lost his fishing boat and equipment, forcing him to start from nothing.
“This battle is not only for me but also for my children,” he said. “This could help us in a lot of ways, and I could help fight for future generations.”
Another claimant, Betty, recalled how her sister was buried alive under rubble during the typhoon.
She said people often call such disasters “acts of nature,” but she questions who is accountable for the rising intensity of storms. “We are abandoned and denied justice,” she said.
What the lawsuit argues. The claimants, supported by the UK law firm Hausfeld, are invoking Philippine civil law in a UK court. Their argument centers on four main points:
Moral and social harm: Shell’s actions violated morals, good customs and public policy.
Constitutional breach: The company infringed on Filipinos’ constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Negligence: Shell failed to reduce its climate impact and misled the public about climate science.
Unjust enrichment: Shell profited from fossil fuels while communities like those in the Visayas bore the costs of climate destruction.
A letter before action was delivered to Shell’s London headquarters in October. If no settlement or acknowledgment is made, formal proceedings will begin in December 2025.
Why file the case in the UK. Though the damage occurred in the Philippines, Shell’s global headquarters are in London. Filing the case there places responsibility at the corporate center rather than its subsidiaries.
The claimants argue that multinational corporations must be accountable in the jurisdictions where key decisions are made — not just where environmental damage happens.
The case mirrors a growing trend: using transnational litigation to hold major polluters legally liable for their role in the climate crisis.
The bigger picture: Climate justice. Shell is one of the largest contributors to historical greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the Carbon Majors Database, the company has emitted more than 41 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, or roughly two percent of global industrial emissions, since the mid-20th century.
Despite mounting scientific evidence linking fossil fuels to extreme weather, Shell continues to invest heavily in oil and gas.
The company reported record profits of $40 billion in 2022 and another $16.5 billion in 2024.
Those figures, environmental advocates say, underscore the imbalance between corporate gain and community loss.
“This case is long overdue,” said Ryan Roset, senior legal fellow at the LRC. “It is the fisherfolk, the farmers, the women and children, the low-income and vulnerable groups who are left to grapple with the devastating effects of climate change. Those who have contributed the most to this planetary catastrophe must finally answer for it.”
The science behind the case. Climate scientists have shown that human-induced global warming has made storms like Odette stronger and more destructive.
Research in climate attribution — which calculates how much climate change worsens specific events — found that warming has more than doubled the likelihood of extreme tropical cyclones in the region.
Odette killed 405 people, injured more than 1,400, and caused P47.8 billion in damages across the Philippines. The typhoon was one of the strongest to hit the country during the Covid-19 pandemic, flattening homes and disrupting livelihoods that were already fragile.
The global context: A growing legal movement. This lawsuit adds to a rising wave of climate litigation worldwide.
From the Netherlands to Peru, courts are increasingly asked to weigh whether corporations and governments have a legal duty to prevent climate harm.
In 2021, a Dutch court ordered Shell to cut its global carbon emissions by 45 percent by 2030, ruling that the company’s operations violated human rights.
The Philippine case echoes that precedent but takes it a step further by focusing on damages to individual survivors rather than national policy.
If successful, it could establish a model for communities in the Global South to seek justice in courts of the Global North, a potential shift in how climate accountability is enforced.
What comes next. Shell has not yet publicly responded to the legal notice.
The company has previously said it supports the goals of the Paris Agreement and is investing in renewable energy, though critics argue that these measures fall short of meaningful action.
For now, the claimants wait. As their case moves toward the UK High Court, their hope is to make history — not just for compensation, but for recognition that corporations bear legal responsibility for the crisis communities are enduring.
“This is not just about one storm,” said Arnold. “It’s about justice for all of us who live with the fear that the next one will be worse.” (Bryce Ken Abellon, USJ-R intern)