TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS, INC v. CA
G.R. No.
94759, Jan. 21, 1991, 201 SCRA
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 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 III-Pollution 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 mayor’s 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.
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. The CA denied Technology Developer's petition for
certiorari for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
W/N the
acting mayor had a legal ground for ordering the stoppage of Technology
Developer
HELD:
YES. The
following circumstances militate against the maintenance of the writ of
preliminary injunction sought by petitioner:
1. No mayor's permit had been secured. While it
is true that the matter of determining whether there is a pollution of the
environment that requires control if not prohibition of the operation of a
business is essentially addressed to the Environmental Management Bureau of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, it must be recognized that the
mayor of a town has as much responsibility to protect its inhabitants from
pollution, and by virtue of his police power, he may deny the application for a
permit to operate a business or otherwise close the same unless appropriate
measures are taken to control and/or avoid injury to the health of the
residents of the community from the emissions in the operation of the
business.
2. The
Acting Mayor called the attention of petitioner to the pollution emitted by the
fumes of its plant whose offensive odor "not only pollute the air in the
locality but also affect the health of the residents in the area," so that
petitioner was ordered to stop its operation until further orders.
3.
This action of the Acting Mayor was in response to the complaint of the
residents of Barangay Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, directed to the Provincial
Governor through channels.
4. The
closure order of the Acting Mayor was issued only after an investigation was
made by Marivic Guina who in her report
observed that the fumes emitted by the plant goes directly to the
surrounding houses and that no proper air pollution device has been installed.
5.
Petitioner failed to produce a building permit from the municipality of
Sta. Maria, but instead presented a building permit issued by an official of
Makati on March 6, 1987.
6.
While petitioner was able to present a temporary permit to operate by
the then National Pollution Control Commission on December 15, 1987, the permit
was good only up to May 25, 1988. Petitioner had not exerted any effort to
extend or validate its permit much less to install any device to control the
pollution and prevent any hazard to the health of the residents of the
community.
Court
takes note of the plea of petitioner focusing on its huge investment in this
dollar-earning industry. It must be stressed however, that concomitant with
the need to promote investment and contribute to the growth of the economy is
the equally essential imperative of protecting the health, nay the very lives
of the people, from the deleterious effect of the pollution of the
environment.
● The
well-known rule is that the matter of issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court
and its action shall not be disturbed on appeal unless it is demonstrated that
it acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or otherwise, in
grave abuse of its discretion. By the same token the court that issued such a
preliminary relief may recall or dissolve the writ as the circumstances may
warrant.
Petition denied.
