pab v. ca (g.r. no. 93891)

7/22/2019 PAB v. CA (G.R. No. 93891)

1/3

PROPERTYDIGESTS(20132014) ATTY.VIVENCIOABANO

RACHELLEANNEGUTIERREZ

G.R.No.93891 March11,1991

PABv.CA

Plaintiffs:POLLUTIONADJUDICATIONBOARD(PAB)

Defendant: COURT OF APPEALS and SOLAR TEXTILE FINISHING

CORPORATION

CASE: P.D. 984, Section 7 provides for the authority of the National

PollutionControlCommissionwhichwassucceededbythePollution

AdjudicationBoard to issuecease anddesist ordersagainstentities

releasinghighlypollutivewatersintoPhilippinebodiesofwater. Section

5 ofthe EffluentRegulations of1982 sets the maximum permissible

levelsforthewastestobereleasedintowaters.ThePABissuedacease

anddesistorderagainstSolarTextileFinishingCorporationbasedon2investigations showing that they were releasing huge amounts of

untreatedwasteinto Tullahan-TinejerosRiver, withonly20%of such

wastebeingdepositedtotheirWastewaterTreatmentPlantwhichwas

notevencompletelyoperational.SeeDOCTRINEforSCruling.

DOCTRINE: Public hearing is not required prior to the issuance of a

ceasedanddesistorder,becausestoppingthecontinuousdischargeof

pollutiveanduntreatedeffluentsintotheriversandotherinlandwaters

ofthePhilippinescannotbemadetowaituntilprotractedlitigationover

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

correctnessofsuchorder.

BACKGROUND:

September22,1988ThePABissuedanOrderdirectingSolarimmediately toceaseand desist fromutilizing itswastewater

pollutionsourceinstallationswhichweredischarginguntreated

wastewater directly into a canal leading to the adjacent

Tullahan-TinejerosRiver.

Respondent,SolarTextileFinishingCorporationwithplantand

place of business at 999 General Pascual Avenue, Malabon,

Metro Manila is involved in bleaching, rinsing and dyeingtextiles with wastewater of about 30 gpm. being directly

dischargeduntreated into the sewer. Basedon findings inthe

Inspectionsconductedon05November1986and15November

1986, the volume of untreatedwastewater discharged in the

finaloutfall outsideoftheplant'scompoundwasevengreater.

The result of inspection conducted on 06 September 1988

showed that respondent'sWastewater Treatment Plant was

notedunoperationalandthecombinedwastewatergenerated

fromitsoperationwasabout30gallonsperminuteand80%of

thewastewaterwasbeingdirectlydischargedintoadrainagecanalleadingtotheTullahan-TinejerosRiver bymeansofaby-

pass and the remaining 20%was channelledinto theplant's

existing Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP). Result of the

analysesof thesampletakenfrom theby-pass showedthat

thewastewaterishighlypollutiveintermsofColorunits,BOD

andSuspendedSolids,amongothers.Theseactsofrespondent

inspiteofdirectivestocomplywiththerequirementsareclearly

in violation of Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 984 and

Section103ofitsImplementingRulesandRegulationsandthe

1982EffluentRegulations .

o TheOrderwasbasedon2investigations:November5&121986andSeptember6,1988(asstatedintheletter)

o TheOrderwasreceivedbySolaronSeptember26,andaWritofExecutionwasissuedonMarch31,1989.

April21,1989SolarfiledapetitionforcertiorariattheRTC. April 24, 1989 Based on Solar's motion

reconsideration/appealwithprayerforstayofexecutiontothe

Board, the Board allowed Solar to operate temporarily, to

7/22/2019 PAB v. CA (G.R. No. 93891)

2/3



enabletheBoardtoconductanotherinspectionandevaluation

ofSolar'swastewatertreatmentfacilities.

July21,1989TheRegionalTrialCourtdismissedthepetitionbecause (1)appealandnot certiorariwas theproper remedy,

and(2)theBoardsOrderallowingSolartotemporarilyoperate

renderedthispetitionmootandacademic. Courtof Appeals heldthatcertiorariwas a proper remedy

since the Ordersof petitioner Boardmayresult in great and

irreparableinjurytoSolar.

ISSUESTOBERESOLVED:

1. WhetherornottheCourtofAppealserredinreversingthetrialcourtonthegroundthatSolarhadbeendenieddueprocessby

theBoard.

IMPORTANTPROVISIONSOFLAWP.D.984,Section7,paragraph(a),provides:

(a)PublicHearing....Provided,ThatwhenevertheCommission

findsprimafacieevidencethatthedischargedsewageorwastes

areofimmediatethreattolife,publichealth,safetyorwelfare,

ortoanimalorplantlife,orexceedstheallowablestandardsset

by the Commission, the Commissionermay issue anex-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

withoutthenecessityofapriorpublichearing.Thesaidex-parte

ordershallbeimmediatelyexecutoryandshallremaininforce

untilsaidestablishmentorpersonpreventsorabatesthesaid

pollutionwithintheallowablestandardsormodifiedornullified

byacompetentcourt.

Section5of theEffluentRegulationsof1982 sets out themaximum

permissiblelevelsofphysicalandchemicalsubstanceswhicheffluents

fromdomesticwastewatertreatmentplantsandindustrialplants"must

notexceed"whendischargedintobodiesofwaterclassifiedasClassA,

B, C, D, SB and SC in accordance with the 1978 NPCC1 Rules and

Regulations."

Thewaters of Tullahan-TinejerosRiver areclassified as inlandwatersClass DunderSection68of the 1978NPCC Rules and

Regulations

RESOLUTIONSANDARGUMENTS

ISSUE1 WhetherornottheCourtofAppealserredinreversingthetrialcourtonthegroundthatSolarhadbeendenieddueprocessbythe

Board. NO. ThereBoardwasactingwithin itspowers, asstatedby

law,inissuingtheceaseanddesistordersagainstSolar.

Major Point 1: It is not essential that the Board prove that an

"immediatethreattolife,publichealth,safetyorwelfare,ortoanimal

orplantlife"existsbefore anexparte ceaseanddesist ordermaybe

issued. Itis enough if the Boardfindsthatthewastesdischarged doexceedtheallowablestandardssetbytheBoard.

TheNovember1986reportsshow thatthe previousowneroftheplant, FineTouch FinishingCorporation,wasalso issueda

ceaseanddesistorderuntilsuchtimeastheirwastetreatment

plantwasfunctional.

Solar,thenewowner,informedtheNPCCoftheacquisitionoftheplantonMarch1986.SolarwassummonedbytheNPCCto

a hearing on 13 October 1986 based on the results of the

sampling test conducted by the NPCC on 8 August 1986.

PetitionerBoardrefrainedfrom issuingan expartecease and

desistorderuntilaftertheNovember1986andSeptember1988

re-inspectionswere conducted and theviolationof applicable

standardswasconfirmed.

Basedonthereports(asstatedintheBoard'sletter),therewasatleastprimafacieevidencebeforetheBoardthattheeffluents

emanatingfromSolar'splantexceededthemaximumallowable

1 National Pollution Control Commission (the predecessor of the Pollution

AdjudicationBoard)

7/22/2019 PAB v. CA (G.R. No. 93891)

3/3



levelsofphysicalandchemicalsubstancessetbytheNPCCand

that accordingly there was adequate basis supporting the ex

parteceaseanddesistorderissuedbytheBoard.

MajorPoint2:Wheretheestablishmentaffectedbyanexpartecease

anddesistorderconteststhecorrectnessoftheprimafaciefindingsofthe Board, the Board must hold a public hearing where such

establishmentwould have an opportunity to controvert the basis of

suchexparteorder.

That this opportunity for hearing is subsequently available isreally all that is required by the due process clause of the

Constitutioninsituationslikethatwehavehere.

FINAL VERDICT: The decision of the CA is reversed. The Order of

petitionerBoarddated22September1988andtheWritofExecution,

aswellasthedecisionofthetrialcourtdated21July1989,areherebyREINSTATED, without prejudice to the right of Solar to contest the

correctnessofthebasisoftheBoard'sOrderandWritofExecutionata

publichearingbeforetheBoard.

NOSEPARATEOPINIONS

pab v. ca (g.r. no. 93891)

Documents