Case Digest: Technology Developer, Inc. vs. CA

G.R. No. 94759

Technology Developer, Inc. vs. CA

January 21, 1991

Petitioner Technology Developer, Inc. sought to annul the Mayor’s order in closing the petitioner’s Plant, assailing the latter’s power in denying the former a mayor’s permit on the basis of environment violation.

RULING:

The lower courts were right in upholding the mayor’s order, reasoning that  although the NPCC of the Ministry of human Settlements (now Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources) has the task to determine the existence of pollution and violations of environmental laws, the mayor by virtue of his police power has as much responsibility to protect its constituents from the same and regulate the operation of establishments which pose relative threat to the community.

The Court, in considering the evidence presented, upheld the respondent, stressing the importance of the general welfare of the community over and above the potential economic return of investment but is detrimental to many.

Read More

Case Digest: Pollution Adjudication board vs. Court of Appeal and Solar Textile Finishing Corp.

G.R. 93891

Pollution Adjudication board vs. Court of Appeal and Solar Textile Finishing Corp.

March 11, 1991

Respondent Solar assailed the Ex parte Cease and Desist Order by petitioner Pollution Adjudication Board on the ground that the former was denied due process and that the degree of threat required for the said Order is remiss. Petitioner reasoned that under PD No.984 Section 7(a), the Board has the legal authority to issue ex parte orders to suspend the operations of an establishment when there is prima facie evidence that such establishment is discharging effluents or wastewater, the pollution level of which exceeds the maximum permissible standards set by the NPCC.

RULING:

The Court ruled in favor of petitioner.

The Court held that the Board may issue the ex parte cease and desist order upon prima facie evidence that the respondent corporation has waste discharge beyond the allowable standards set by the NPCC (Sec5, Effluent Regulations of 1982 and Sec7(a),PD 984).  If it has not yet been subject to the allowable standard, the Board may still issue ex parte cease and desist order upon prima facie evidence that the effluent pose an "immediate threat to life, public health, safety or welfare, or to animal or plant life. The court held that the Board, as the government entity tasked to determine whether the effluents of a particular industrial establishment comply with or violate applicable anti-pollution statutory and regulatory provisions, has the authority to issue the order as it may see fit. This is, after all, allowed by law to address relevant pollution issues as an immediate recourse.

Read More