LOCAL GOVERNMENT | B2015 CASE DIGESTS

Technology Developers, Inc. v. CA

July 31, 1991 No ponente indicated Raeses, Roberto Miguel RESOLUTION

permit, mayor's permit, and Region III--Pollution of Environment and Natural Resources Anti--Pollution Permit. Technology Developers undertook to comply with the request to produce the required documents. It sought to secure the Region IIIPollution of Environment and Natural Resources Anti--Pollution Permit although prior to the operation of the plant, a Temporary Permit to Operate Air Pollution Installation was issued to it. Petitioners also sent its representatives to the office of the mayor to secure a mayors permit but were not entertained. Eventually, the acting mayor ordered that the plant premises be padlocked, effectively causing the stoppage of operation. This was done without previous and reasonable notice. Technology Developers then instituted an action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction against the acting mayor with Bulacan RTC, alleging that the closure order was issued in grave abuse of discretion. The RTC found that the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was proper, ordering the acting mayor to immediately revoke his closure order and allow Technology Developers to resume its normal business operations until the case has been adjudicated on the merits. The reasons given for the closure was (a) that the plant had been operating without a mayors permit; and (b) it was causing air pollution in the vicinity of the plant site. Upon MR, the Provincial Prosecutor presented evidence as to the allegation that "Due to the manufacturing process and nature of raw materials used, the fumes coming from the factory may contain particulate matters which are hazardous to the health of the people. As such, the company should cease operating until such a time that the proper air pollution device is installed and operational." Reassessing the evidence, the RTC set aside its order granted the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. However, upon the mayors filing

SUMMARY: Technology Developers Inc. is engaged in manufacturing and exporting charcoal briquette. On February 16, 1989, they received a letter from respondent Acting Mayor Pablo Cruz, ordering the full cessation of the operation of the petitioners plant in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The letter also requested the company to show to the office of the mayor some documents, including the Building permit, mayors permit, and Region III-Pollution of Environmental and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution Permit. Since the company failed to comply in bringing the required documents, respondent Acting Mayor, without notice, caused the padlock of companys plant premises, effectively causing stoppage of its operation. Technology Developers then instituted an action for certiorari, prohiition, mandamus with preliminary injuction against respondents, alleging that the closure order was issued in grave abuse of discretion. The lower court ruled against the company. The CA affirmed the lower courts ruling. The SC affirmed. Upon MR, the SC reversed, stating that the EMB had primary jurisdiction over matters regarding air pollution. DOCTRINE: It is beyond a municipal mayors ken and competence to review, revise, reverse, or set aside a permit to opera [petitioners charcoal briquette plant] issued by the EMB, which is the primary authority to determine whether [there is a violation of anti-pollution laws]. FACTS: Technology Developers, a corporation engaged in the manufacture and export of charcoal briquette, received a letter from acting mayor Pablo Cruz: 1) ordering the full cessation of its plant in Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan until further order, and 2) requesting its Plant Manager to bring before the office of the mayor its building

LOCAL GOVERNMENT | B2015 CASE DIGESTS

of an MR, the writ was lifted. According to the RTC, although the petitioner was entitled to the writ, the evidence showed that some people in Brgy. Guyong complained that the plant was emitting an offensive odor and polluting the air. Furthermore, since it was the bounden duty of the local government, the continuance of the writ was would cause great damage to them. The CA denied Technology Developer's petition for certiorari for lack of merit. The SC affirmed the CAs decision on the basis of the factual allegations of the mayor. Hence this MR. ISSUE: WON the acting mayor had the authority for ordering the stoppage of Technology Developer RULING: NO. It is not within the mayors powers to order the closure of the plant. RATIO: Technology Developers refute the factual allegations of the mayor in the original case: (1) Petitioner obtained a mayors permit, but from the wrong mayor (Mayor of Makati where its principal office was located), but tried to obtain one when from Sta. Maria. Such attempt was rebuffed. (2) The petition was padded, as the NBI handwriting expert certified that several signatures in the petition of the supposed residents of Brgy. Guyong were made by only one person. (3) No verification from the EMB of Marivic Guinas report that the smoke from the plant may contain hazardous particulate matters. (4) Petitioner had a building permit from Building Official of the Ministry of Public Works and Highways. (5) The permit issued by the EMB was renewed and even extended to Dec, 1990. It was not renewed in 1991 because of the closure order. Aside from these, the Court, upon reconsideration, found the mayors acts as bereft of jurisdiction to do so. The applicable law is P.D. No. 984, which created and established the Natl Pollution Control Commission, later renamed the Environmental Management Board, as the primary

agency responsible for the prevention and control of pollution in the country. The primacy of its jurisdiction is affirmed in Secs. 10 and 17 of the EMB for prevention of pollution shall supersede and prevail over any rules or regulations as may heretofore have been issused by other govt agencies or instrumentalities on the same subject, and any provision of laws, presidential decree, EO, rules and regulations and/or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed and modified accordingly. Incidentally, even the CC provisions on nuisance caused by pollution of air, water, or land resources, are deemed repealed. The powers1 conferred to the EMB are not conferred by law to town officials.
SECTION 6. Powers and Functions.---The Commission shall have the following powers and functions: a) Determine the location, magnitude, extent, severity. causes, effects and other pertinent information regarding pollution of the water, air and land resources of the country; take such measures, using available methods and technologies, as it shall deem best to prevent or abate such pollution; and conduct continuing researches and studies on the effective means for the control and abatement of the pollution. c) Issue standards, rules and regulations to govern the approval of plans and specifications for sewage works and industrial waste disposal system and the issuance of permits in accordance with the provisions of this Decree; inspect the construction and maintenance of sewage works and industrial waste disposal system for compliance to plans. d) Adopt, prescribe, and promulgate rules and regulations governing the procedures of the Commission with respect to hearing, plans, specifications, designs and other data for sewage works and industrial waste disposal system, the filing of reports, the issuance of permits, and other rules and regulations for the proper implementation and enforcement of this Decree. e) Issue orders or decisions to compel compliance with the provisions of this Decree and its implementing rules and regulations only after proper notice and hearing. f) Make, alter or modify orders requiring the discontinuance of pollution specifying the conditions and the time within which such discontinuance must be accomplished. g) Issue, renew, or deny permits, under such conditions as it may determine to be reasonable, for the prevention and abatement of pollution, for the discharge of sewage, industrial waste, or for the installation or operation of sewage, works and industrial disposal system or parts thereof: Provided, however,, That the Commission, by rules and regulations, may require subdivisions, condominium, hospitals, public buildings and other similar human settlements to put up appropriate central sewerage system and sewage treatment works, except that no permits shall be required of any new sewage works , except that no permits shall be required of any new sewage works or changes to or extensions of existing works that discharge only domestic or sanitary wastes from a single residential building provided with septic tanks or their equivalent. The Commission may impose reasonable fees and charges for the issuance or renewal of all permits herein required.
1

LOCAL GOVERNMENT | B2015 CASE DIGESTS

Sec. 7 of PD 984 requires that public hearings shall be conducted by the commissioner (none was held by the mayor), prior to the issuance or promulgation of any order or decision of the commissioner requiring the discontinuance of discharge of industrial wastes or other wastes into the water, air, or land resources in the Philippines. Sec. 7[b] of the same law provides that the decision of the EMB may be reviewed by the CA. The same law also vests in the EMB the duty and power to determine the location, magnitude, extent, severity, causes and effects of alleged air pollution, as well as to revoke, suspend, or modify any permit issued by it after due notice if necessary to prevent air pollution. As the EMB has actually issued a permit to the petitioner, and that the Deputy Zoning Administrator found that the plant is in accordance with the devt plan and zonfication in the locality, the acting municipal mayor may not capriciously deny a permit to operate petitioners otherwise legitimate business on the ground that its plant was causing excessive air pollution. Only the EMB may do so. This is consistent with the ruling in Mead v. Argel. It is beyond a municipal mayors ken and competence to review, revise, reverse, or set aside a permit to opera [petitioners charcoal briquette plant] issued by the EMB, which is the primary authority to determine whether [there is a violation of anti-pollution laws]. DISPOSITIVE: The petition for review of Technology Developers ie hereby granted, with the closure order being annulled and set aside.

h) After due notice and hearing, the Commission may also revoke, suspend or modify any permit issued under this decree whenever the same is necessary to prevent or abate

pollution.