Technology vs CA (193 scra 147) Facts: Technology Developers Inc. is engaged in manufacturing and exporting charcoal br iquette.

OnFebruary 16, 1989, they received a letter from respondent Acting Mayo r Pablo Cruz, ordering the fullcessation of the operation of the petitioner?s pl ant in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The letter also requested thecompany to show to the office of the mayor some documents, including the Building permit, mayor?spermit , and Region III-Pollution of Environmental and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution Permit.Since the company failed to comply in bringing the required documents, r espondent ActingMayor, without notice, caused the padlock of company?s plant pre mises, effectively causing stoppage of its operation.Technology Developers then instituted an action for certiorari, prohiition, mandamus withpreliminary injuct ion against respondents, alleging that the closure order was issued in grave abu se of discretion. The lower court ruled against the company. The CA affirmed the lower court?s ruling. Issue: Whether of not the mayor has authority to order the closure of the plant. YES. Whether or not the closure order was done with grave abuse of discretion. NO. Ruling: 1. No mayor's permit had been secured. While it is true that the matter of determin ingwhether there is a pollution of the environment that requires control if not prohibition of the operation of a business is essentially addressed to the then National Pollution ControlCommission of the Ministry of Human Settlements, now t he Environmental ManagementBureau of the Department of Environment and Natural R esources, it must be recognizedthat the mayor of a town has as much responsibili ty to protect its inhabitants from pollution,and by virture of his police power, he may deny the application for a permit to operate abusiness or otherwise clos e the same unless appropriate measures are taken to controland/or avoid injury t o the health of the residents of the community from the emissions inthe operatio n of the business.2. The Acting Mayor, in the letter, called the attention of petitioner to the pollu tion emitted bythe fumes of its plant whose offensive odor "not only pollute the air in the locality but alsoaffect the health of the residents in the area," so that petitioner was ordered to stop itsoperation until further orders and it wa s required to bring the following: a. Building permit; b. Mayor's permit; and c. Region III-Department of Environment and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution permit .3. This action of the Acting Mayor was in response to the complaint of the resident s of Barangay Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, directed to the Provincial Governor t hrough channels. 4. The closure order of the Acting Mayor was issued only after an investigation was made.Itfound thatthe fumes emitted by the plant of petitioner goes directly to the surroundinghouses and that no proper air pollution device has been installed

. 5. Petitioner failed to produce a building permit from the municipality of Sta. Mar ia, butinstead presented a building permit issued by an official of Makati. 6. While petitioner was able to present a temporary permit to operate by the then N ationalPollution Control Commission on December 15, 1987, the permit was good on ly up to May25, 1988. Petitioner had not exerted any effort to extend or validate its permit much less toinstall any device to control the pollution and prevent any hazard to the hea lth of theresidents of the community. Petitioner takes note of the plea of petit ioner focusing on its huge investment in this dollar-earning industry. It must b e stressed however, that concomitant with the need to promote investmentand cont ribute to the growth of the economy is the equally essential imperative of prote cting the health,nay the very lives of the people, from the deleterious effect o f the pollution of the environment