Kintanar, Marie Caitlin C.
EH405
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS, INC., petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. NARCISO T. ATIENZA as Presiding Judge,
Bulacan, RTC, and HON. VICENTE CRUZ, Acting Mayor and the
MUNICIPALITY OF STA. MARIA, BULACAN, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner herein is a domestic private corporation engaged in the
manufacture and export of charcoal briquette, received a letter from
private respondent acting mayor Pablo N. Cruz, ordering the full
cessation of the operation of the petitioner's plant and requested Plant
Manager Mr. Armando Manese to bring with him to the office of the
mayor the building permit, Mayors permit, Region III-Pollution of
Environment and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution Permit.
Petitioner 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 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 RTC on their decision set aside its order granted the writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction. The appellate Court also denied
Technology Developer's petition for certiorari for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the lower court correctly ordered the dissolution of the
writ of preliminary injunction sought by petitioner and prove
Held:
The SC enumerated the circumstances that 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.
