case: llda vs. sm prime holdings

8/10/2019 Case: LLDA vs. SM Prime Holdings

1/10

Mifaa, Divine Grace M.

13-11233


2/10

FactsThis is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision and Resolutionof the CA which reversed and set aside the Orders of petitioner Public Hearing

Authority of the LLDA and denied its Motion for Reconsideration.

The instant petition arose from an inspection conducted on February 4,2002 by the Pollution Control Division of the LLDA of the wastewatercollected from respondents SM City Manila branch.

Sample collected from the said facility failed to conform with the effluentstandards for inland water imposed in accordance with law.

On March 12, 2002, LLDA informed SM City Manila of its violation:

- directing the same to perform corrective measures to abate or control thepollution caused by the said company; and

- ordering the latter to pay P1,000 per day of discharging pollutivewastewater to be computed from February 4, 2002 (date of inspection),until full cessation of discharging pollutive wastewater.


3/10

March 23, 2002: In a letter, respondentsPollution ControlOfficer requested the LLDA to conduct a re-sampling oftheir effluent, claiming that they already took themeasures to enable their sewage treatment plant to meetthe standards set forth by the LLDA.

In an Order to Pay dated October 2, 2002, petitionerrequired respondent to pay a fine of P50,000 whichrepresents the accumulated daily penalty computed fromFebruary 4March 25, 2002.

The respondent issued follow up letters which thepetitioner treated as Motion for Reconsideration, whererespondent asked for a waiver of the fine assessed bythe LLDA in its March 12, 2002 Notice of Violation andOrder of October 2, 2002


4/10

Requests for reconsideration were denied.

On May 27, 2003, the LLDA issued another Order to

Pay, requiring payment of the fine within 10 days

from respondents receipt of a copy of the said order.

Aggrieved, respondent filed a petition for certiorari

with the CA praying for the nullification of the Orders

of the LLDA.


5/10

CA rendered its Decision, granting and setting aside

the assailed Orders of the LLDA

Ruling that an administrative agencys power to

impose fines may not be implied

The CA found that under its charter RA 4850, the

LLDA is not expressly granted any power or authority

to impose fines for violations of effluent standards set

by law.

The assailed Orders of the petitioner are issued

without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of

discretion.

Ruling of the CA


6/10

Issue

Whether or not the Laguna Lake DevelopmentAuthority has the power to impose fines


7/10

Ruling of the SC

Yes.

The LLDA has the power to impose fines in the

exercise of its function as a regulatory and quasi-

judicial body with respect to pollution cases in the

Laguna Lake region. (Pacific Steam Laundry, Inc. v.

LLDA)


8/10

Under Section 4-A of RA 4850, the LLDA is entitled tocompensation for damages resulting from failure to meetestablished and effluent standards.

In addition, Section 4 (d) of EO No. 927, which further definescertain functions and powers of the LLDA, provides that theLLDA has the power to make,alter or modify orders requiringthe discontinuance of pollution specifying the conditions and thetime within which such discontinuance must be accomplished.

Section 4 (i) of the same EO states that the LLDA is givenauthority to exercise such powers and perform such other

functions as may be necessary to carru out its duties andresponsibilities.

Also, Section 4 (c) authorizes the LLDA to issue orders ordecisions to compel compliance with the provisions the EO andits implementing rules and regulations only after proper noticeand hearing.


9/10

The intendment of the law, as gleaned from Section(i) of EO No. 927, is to clothe the LLDA not only with

the express powers granted to it, but also those

which are implied or incidental but, nonetheless, are

necessary or essential for the full properimplementation of its purposes and functions.

Petition is GRANTED. The Orders of the LLDA are

reinstated and affirmed.


10/10

Questions

1. What was the penalty imposed by the LLDA to SM City Manila?

The LLDA ordered SM City manila to pay P1,000 per day of discharging pollutivewastewater computed from February 4, 2002 (date of inspection), until full cessation ofdischarging pollutive wastewater.

2. The LLDA has jurisdiction over what area?

The Laguna Lake region.

The jurisdiction and scope of authority of the LLDA comprises the towns of Rizal andLaguna provinces, towns of Silang, General Mariano Alvarez, Carmona, Tagaytay City inCavite, Lucban, Quezon, City of Tanauan, towns of Sto. Tomas and Malvar in Batangas,Cities of Marikina, Pasig, Taguig, Muntinlupa, Pasay, Caloocan, Quezon and town ofPateros in Metro Manila

case: llda vs. sm prime holdings

Documents