Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Judicial Region 5
Branch No. 1234
Bulacan City
OUR LADY OF PEACE INSTIUTE (OLPI),
Petitioner
Civil Case No. 01-!"#$
-ve%s&s- !or" #rit of Continuing $anda%us
&ith Prayer for '(P) and *a%ages
&ith +ttorney,s !ees
TIRE RECYCLERS INCORPORATED (TRI),
DEPART'ENT OF ENERGY AND NATIONAL RESOURCES (DENR),
Respondents
-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
ANS(ER (IT) COUNTER-CLAI'
R(/P)N*(N' Boo% Panes President of 'R0 through counsels to this 1onourable Court
respectfully states that"
1. 'R0 ad%its to paragraphs 1 2 and 3 of the co%plaint as they describe the factual details
of the P+R'0(/ in2ol2ed.
2. R(/P)N*(N' ac3no&ledges paragraphs 4 5 and 4.
3. Paragraph 5 is a s&eeping generali6ation of the co%%unity,s opinion to &hich unless all
residents ha2e been sur2eyed such clai% cannot be substantiated.
4. R(/P)N*(N' has no 3no&ledge &hy the %e%bers of )7P0 stopped &ith their %orning
&al3s as indicated in paragraph 89 the foul odour indicated could ha2e co%e fro%
any&here since industrial de2elop%ent in Bulacan is ongoing. #ith regard to the
co%%unity,s health there are %any factors that could ha2e caused such deterioration and
attributing it to the R(/P)N*(N' solely is selecti2e arbitrary and inconclusi2e.
5. +ccording to research by the *epart%ent of Che%ical (ngineering of Coi%batore
0nstitute of 'echnology :as found in the 0nternational Journal of Research in (ngineering
and 'echnology :0JR('; 'ire Pyrolysis is a 2iable process of obtaining deri2ed li<uids
and in so%e aspects e2en better than si%ply thro&ing &aste tires on landfills &here they
can accu%ulate $ethane. +dditionally *(!(N*+N' has engaged the ser2ices of a
Che%ical (ngineering specialist in defense of the 'ire Pyrolysis technology. (E*)I+IT
1 , A--i.avi/ o- C0e1i2al E34i3ee% Clai%e +a&/is/a)
4. R(/P)N*(N' ac3no&ledges paragraph = insofar as the petitioners ha2e consulted their
o&n doctors for consultation. 1o&e2er R(/P)N*(N' interposes that that there are
%any factors &hich could ha2e caused such illnesses and solely attributing it to
R(/P)N*(N' is irresponsible on the part of the petitioner. R(/P)N*(N' has
engaged the ser2ices of its co%pany doctor9 an estee%ed Cardiologist and 7ung
/pecialist. 'he $edical !indings sho& that 'R0,s e%ployees specifically +na
7a-a%ana ha2e a clean bill of health and there has been no substantial degradation of her
lungs fro% her last %edical chec3up bac3 in !ebruary 2>>5. (E*)I+IT , 'e.i2al
Re5o%/ o- A3a La6a1a3a7 E*)I+IT ! , *-%a8 o- A3a La6a1a3a)
5. R(/P)N*(N' specifically denies the allegations %ade in paragraph 1>. Pollution and
foul odour can be caused by %any different things and cannot be solely attributed to the
recycling facility. R(/P)N*(N' again %aintains that there has been a recent surge in
industrial de2elop%ent in Bulacan and P('0'0)N(R,s act of singling out
R(/P)N*(N' as the %ain cause of air pollution is not yet fully substantiated or
conclusi2e.
8. R(/P)N*(N' specifically denies paragraph 11 insofar as 'ire Pyrolisis is an ?outdated
technology.@ P('0'0)N(R/ are not e-perts in the industry and are not <ualified to %a3e
assertions regarding the 2iability and effecti2eness of such technology.
=. R(/P)N*(N' ac3no&ledges paragraph 12 of the co%plaint insofar as P('0'0)N(R,s
co%plaint to the ($B.*(NR is in2ol2ed. 0t is <uite ludicrous ho&e2er that &ithin only
8 days of operation the P('0'0)N(R has already concluded that the tire recycling
facility is the %ain perpetrator of the pollution &hen in truth and in fact there are
nu%erous factories &ithin the area. R(/P)N*(N' 'R0 %aintains that its operations are
&ithin the standards set forth by *(NR as e2idenced by the (n2iron%ental Co%pliance
Certificate it issued on No2e%ber 14 2>>5. (E*)I+IT " , ECC-R!-99$:-0;;-$:$:)
1>. R(/P)N*(N' ad%its the ($B ocular inspections and in2estigations in paragraph 13.
1o&e2er specifically denies that R(/P)N*(N'/ are in 2iolation of the Clean +ir +ct
and that though to-ic &aste &as found such &as in an isolated area in the facility &here
it &as being %aintained and self.controlled for purposes of recycling treat%ent research
and de2elop%ent %eant to further recycling technology.
11. R(/P)N*(N' ad%its paragraph 14 insofar as 'R0 is still operational despite the Cease
and *esist )rder. 1o&e2er R(/P)N*(N' interposes that such )rder &as contra2ened
by the 'R) &ith preli%inary inAunction &hich &as granted to the respondent.
:E*)I+IT # , TRO <i/0 P%eli1i3a%8 I3=&32/io3)
12. R(/P)N*(N' specifically denies the assertions %ade in paragraph 15. 'here are %any
factors that could ha2e led to the recurring sic3ness &orsening health conditions and
fre<uent hospitali6ation of the P('0'0)N(R,s %e%bers and attributing the% to the
R(/P)N*(N' is a rec3less selecti2e attac3 on the co%pany.
13. R(/P)N*(N' ac3no&ledges paragraph 14 insofar as the legal action stated ho&e2er
*(!(N*+N' %aintains that it is operating &ithin the standards of the *(NR as
pursuant to its (n2iron%ental Co%pliance Certificate (E*)I+IT " , ECC-R!-99$:-
0;;-$:$:)
ANS(ER TO PETITIONER>S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
14. R(/P)N*(N' ac3no&ledges paragraph 18 insofar as the /epte%ber 12 2>>8 ($B.
*(NR in2estigation is in2ol2ed ho&e2er R(/P)N*(N' finds it i%possible that
*(NR &as able to arri2e at its conclusion regarding 'R0,s to-ic &aste output at such a
short ti%e fra%e. (E*)I+IT 1 , A--i.avi/ o- C0e1i2al E34i3ee% Clai%e +a&/is/a)
15. R(/P)N*(N' denies the conclusions clai%ed by Petitioner as they ha2e not sub%itted
any scientific e2idence to substantiate their clai%. R(/P)N*(N' offers as e2idence its
%edical (E*)I+IT , 'e.i2al Re5o%/ o- A3a La6a1a3a7 E*)I+IT ! , *-%a8 o-
A3a La6a1a3a) and scientific docu%ents as &ell as the testi%ony of its Che%ical
(ngineer to co%bat Petitioner,s lousy and inconclusi2e assertions. (E*)I+IT 1 ,
A--i.avi/ o- C0e1i2al E34i3ee% Clai%e +a&/is/a)
14. R(/P)N*(N' denies the entirety of Paragraph 2> insofar as the pollution le2els are
in2ol2ed. 'R0 is being singled out as the %ain polluter &hereas different factories &ithin
the neighbouring area can also be attributed to such.
15. R(/P)N*(N' ac3no&ledges Paragraph 21 and interposes that the constitutional right
to a balanced and healthful ecology is also in 'R0,s interest as &ell.
18. R(/P)N*(N' denies the assertions %ade in Paragraph 22 insofar as these clai%s are
unsubstantiated and &ithout basis and therefore cannot be gi2en credence in a court of
la&.
1=. R(/P)N*(N' denies the accusations %ade in paragraph 23 since a 'e%porary
Restraining )rder has been issued by the R'C of Bulacan against the Cease and *esist
)rder therefore allo&ing 'R0,s operations to continue legally. :E*)I+IT # , TRO
<i/0 P%eli1i3a%8 I3=&32/io3)
ANS(ER TO PETITIONER>S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2>. R(/P)N*(N' denies the report in paragraph 25 %aintaining that 'R0 is co%pliant &ith
the standards set by the *(NR.
21. R(/P)N*(N' specifically denies paragraph 24 since )7P0 are not e-perts in the
%edical field and ha2e no special training to correlate the gases e%itted fro% the facility
to the illnesses of the P('0'0)N(R/.
22. R(/P)N*(N' denies paragraph 24.2 insofar as 2iolating the Philippine Clean +ir +ct
of 1=== is concerned. *(NR,s scientific findings in /ection 12 of the sa%e la& &ith
regard to +%bient +ir Buality Cuidelines and /tandards are at odds &ith 'R0,s resident
Che%ical (ngineer.
ANS(ER TO PETITIONER>S T)IRD CAUSE OF ACTION
23. R(/P)N*(N' ac3no&ledges paragraph 3> of the co%plaint.
24. R(/P)N*(N' denies the a2er%ents of paragraph 31 and 32. 'R0 has been 2ery
responsible in the &aste %anage%ent of its facility and is also in co%pliance &ith the
current standards set in that regard. +ll structures &ithin the facility are e<uipped to
handle the to-ic &astes present &ithin such industry.
25. R(/P)N*(N' ... R+ =255 ----------------
24. R(/P)N*(N' assails in paragraph 35 that e2en P('0'0)N(R/ ad%it that there is no
clear e2idence that the nearby strea% has been polluted by 'R0 and cannot a2ail of the
precautionary principle since 'R0 has already been gi2en an en2iron%ental co%pliance
certificate.
ANS(ER TO PETITIONER>S FOURT) CAUSE OF ACTION
25. R(/P)N*(N' denies the per%anent closure order cited in paragraph 35 and 38 since
there is a subsisting 'R) on behalf of 'R0 to continue its operations. (E*)I+IT #)
ANS(ER TO PETITIONER>S FIFT) CAUSE OF ACTION
28. R(/P)N*(N' specifically denies paragraph 44. 'R0 has been issued an (CC by the
*(NR pro2ing its co%pliance &ith its ter%s and conditions.
2=. R(/P)N*(N' denies the clai%s %ade in paragraph 45 as such state%ents are purely
speculati2e.
3>. R(/P)N*(N' ad%its paragraph 44 of the co%plaint and in fact already has an
(n2iron%ental Cuarantee !und :(C!; pursuant to P.*. 1584.
31. R(/P)N*(N' 2ehe%ently denies that there &as a breach of duty by the 'R0 as
%entioned in paragraph 45. Currently no 2iolations ha2e been pro2en or substantiated.
32. By &ay of counterclai% the R(/P)N*(N' alleges the follo&ing9
COUNTERCLAI'S
33. 'R(/P+//0NC :e-hibit 4 D cct2 footage;
34. )R+7 /7+N*(R :e-hibit 5 D blotter;
Bulacan City for $unicipality of +ngat $ay 1= 2>14.
CASTRICIONES AND ?UI'OSING OFFICES
Co&3sel -o% /0e Res5o3.e3/@Res5o3.e3/
42! P107+$ ')#(R Paseo de Ro-as
$a3ati City
By"
Re83al.o ?&i1osi34 A%.
Co&3sel -o% Res5o3.e3/@Res5o3.e3/
Roll of +ttorneys No. 2=238
$C7( No. 000.>>5844E21 *ec 2>12EPasig City
0BP No. 7PN.>4241E7ifeti%e $e%berEBue6on City
P'R No. 412=55E1=.Jan.2>12EBue6on City
'i4&el Cas/%i2io3es
Co&3sel -o% Res5o3.e3/@Res5o3.e3/
Roll of +ttorneys No. 2>238
$C7( No. 000.>15844E21 *ec 2>12EPasig City
0BP No. 7PN.14241E7ifeti%e $e%berEBue6on City
P'R No. 412455E1=.Jan.2>12EBue6on City
BERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORU' S)OPPING
Boo% Panes subscribing under oath hereby deposes and states that" 1e is a Respondent
in this case. 1e has read the foregoing petition and the allegations contained therein are true and
correct of her o&n 3no&ledge andEor based on authentic records. 1e attests to the authenticity of
the anne-es thereof.
1e has not co%%enced any other action or proceeding in2ol2ing the sa%e issues in the
/upre%e Court the Court of +ppeals or different *i2isions thereof or any other tribunal or
agency9 No such action or proceeding is pending in the /upre%e Court the Court of +ppeals or
different *i2isions thereof or any other tribunal or agency9 0f respondent should learn that a
si%ilar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the /upre%e Court the Court of
+ppeals or different *i2isions thereof or any other tribunal or agency 1e hereby underta3es to
notify this 1onorable Court &ithin fi2e :5; days therefro%.
+OO' PANES i3 %e5%ese3/a/io3 o-
TIRE RECYCLERS INCORPORATED
SU+SCRI+ED AND S(ORN TO +EFORE 'E this FFFF day of FFFFFFFFFF
2>FFF at FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF affiant e-hibiting to %e his Co%%unity 'a- Certificate
No.FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF issued on FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 2>FF at FFFFFFFFFFFFFFCity.


*oc. No. FFFF 9
Page No. FFFF 9
Boo3 No. FFFF 9
/eries of 2>FFF.