PROPERTY

DIGESTS (2013 2014)

ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO

G.R. No. 93891 March 11, 1991 PAB v. CA Plaintiffs: POLLUTION ADJUDICATION BOARD (PAB) Defendant: COURT OF APPEALS and SOLAR TEXTILE FINISHING CORPORATION CASE: P.D. 984, Section 7 provides for the authority of the National Pollution Control Commission which was succeeded by the Pollution Adjudication Board to issue cease and desist orders against entities releasing highly pollutive waters into Philippine bodies of water. Section 5 of the Effluent Regulations of 1982 sets the maximum permissible levels for the wastes to be released into waters. The PAB issued a cease and desist order against Solar Textile Finishing Corporation based on 2 investigations showing that they were releasing huge amounts of untreated waste into Tullahan-Tinejeros River, with only 20% of such waste being deposited to their Wastewater Treatment Plant which was not even completely operational. See DOCTRINE for SC ruling. DOCTRINE: Public hearing is not required prior to the issuance of a ceased and desist order, because stopping the continuous discharge of pollutive and untreated effluents into the rivers and other inland waters of the Philippines cannot be made to wait until protracted litigation over the ultimate correctness or propriety of such orders has run its full course. What is required is the opportunity for public hearing subsequent to such issuance if the affected entity questions the correctness of such order. BACKGROUND: September 22, 1988 The PAB issued an Order directing Solar immediately to cease and desist from utilizing its wastewater pollution source installations which were discharging untreated

wastewater directly into a canal leading to the adjacent Tullahan-Tinejeros River. Respondent, Solar Textile Finishing Corporation with plant and place of business at 999 General Pascual Avenue, Malabon, Metro Manila is involved in bleaching, rinsing and dyeing textiles with wastewater of about 30 gpm. being directly discharged untreated into the sewer. Based on findings in the Inspections conducted on 05 November 1986 and 15 November 1986, the volume of untreated wastewater discharged in the final out fall outside of the plant's compound was even greater. The result of inspection conducted on 06 September 1988 showed that respondent's Wastewater Treatment Plant was noted unoperational and the combined wastewater generated from its operation was about 30 gallons per minute and 80% of the wastewater was being directly discharged into a drainage canal leading to the Tullahan-Tinejeros River by means of a by- pass and the remaining 20% was channelled into the plant's existing Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP). Result of the analyses of the sample taken from the by-pass showed that the wastewater is highly pollutive in terms of Color units, BOD and Suspended Solids, among others. These acts of respondent in spite of directives to comply with the requirements are clearly in violation of Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 984 and Section 103 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations and the 1982 Effluent Regulations. o The Order was based on 2 investigations: November 5 & 12 1986 and September 6, 1988 (as stated in the letter) o The Order was received by Solar on September 26, and a Writ of Execution was issued on March 31, 1989. April 21, 1989 Solar filed a petition for certiorari at the RTC. April 24, 1989 Based on Solar's motion reconsideration/appeal with prayer for stay of execution to the Board, the Board allowed Solar to operate temporarily, to

RACHELLE ANNE GUTIERREZ

PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 2014)

ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO

enable the Board to conduct another inspection and evaluation of Solar's wastewater treatment facilities. July 21, 1989 The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition because (1) appeal and not certiorari was the proper remedy, and (2) the Boards Order allowing Solar to temporarily operate rendered this petition moot and academic. Court of Appeals held that certiorari was a proper remedy since the Orders of petitioner Board may result in great and irreparable injury to Solar.

B, C, D, SB and SC in accordance with the 1978 NPCC1 Rules and Regulations." The waters of Tullahan-Tinejeros River are classified as inland waters Class D under Section 68 of the 1978 NPCC Rules and Regulations RESOLUTIONS AND ARGUMENTS ISSUE 1 Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court on the ground that Solar had been denied due process by the Board. NO. There Board was acting within its powers, as stated by law, in issuing the cease and desist orders against Solar. Major Point 1: It is not essential that the Board prove that an "immediate threat to life, public health, safety or welfare, or to animal or plant life" exists before an ex parte cease and desist order may be issued. It is enough if the Board finds that the wastes discharged do exceed the allowable standards set by the Board. The November 1986 reports show that the previous owner of the plant, Fine Touch Finishing Corporation, was also issued a cease and desist order until such time as their waste treatment plant was functional. Solar, the new owner, informed the NPCC of the acquisition of the plant on March 1986. Solar was summoned by the NPCC to a hearing on 13 October 1986 based on the results of the sampling test conducted by the NPCC on 8 August 1986. Petitioner Board refrained from issuing an ex parte cease and desist order until after the November 1986 and September 1988 re-inspections were conducted and the violation of applicable standards was confirmed. Based on the reports (as stated in the Board's letter), there was at least prima facie evidence before the Board that the effluents emanating from Solar's plant exceeded the maximum allowable

ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED: 1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court on the ground that Solar had been denied due process by the Board. IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF LAW P.D. 984, Section 7, paragraph (a), provides: (a) Public Hearing. . . . Provided, That whenever the Commission finds prima facie evidence that the discharged sewage or wastes are of immediate threat to life, public health, safety or welfare, or to animal or plant life, or exceeds the allowable standards set by the Commission, the Commissioner may issue an ex-parte order directing the discontinuance of the same or the temporary suspension or cessation of operation of the establishment or person generating such sewage or wastes without the necessity of a prior public hearing. The said ex-parte order shall be immediately executory and shall remain in force until said establishment or person prevents or abates the said pollution within the allowable standards or modified or nullified by a competent court. Section 5 of the Effluent Regulations of 1982 sets out the maximum permissible levels of physical and chemical substances which effluents from domestic wastewater treatment plants and industrial plants" must not exceed "when discharged into bodies of water classified as Class A,

1 National Pollution Control Commission (the predecessor of the Pollution Adjudication Board)

RACHELLE ANNE GUTIERREZ

PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 2014)

ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO

levels of physical and chemical substances set by the NPCC and that accordingly there was adequate basis supporting the ex parte cease and desist order issued by the Board. Major Point 2: Where the establishment affected by an ex parte cease and desist order contests the correctness of the prima facie findings of the Board, the Board must hold a public hearing where such establishment would have an opportunity to controvert the basis of such ex parte order. That this opportunity for hearing is subsequently available is really all that is required by the due process clause of the Constitution in situations like that we have here. FINAL VERDICT: The decision of the CA is reversed. The Order of petitioner Board dated 22 September 1988 and the Writ of Execution, as well as the decision of the trial court dated 21 July 1989, are hereby REINSTATED, without prejudice to the right of Solar to contest the correctness of the basis of the Board's Order and Writ of Execution at a public hearing before the Board. NO SEPARATE OPINIONS

RACHELLE ANNE GUTIERREZ