G.R. No.

165299
December
18,
2009
PACIFIC
STEAM
LAUNDRY, INC., Petitioner, vs.LAGUNA LAKE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Respondent.
FACTS:
Petitioner
Pacific
Steam
Laundry,
Inc.
(petitioner) is a company engaged in the
business of laundry services. On 6 June 2001,
the Environmental Management Bureau of the
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) endorsed to respondent
Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) the
inspection report on the complaint of black
smoke emission from petitioners plant located
at 114 Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City.
On 22 June 2001, LLDA conducted an
investigation
and found that untreated
wastewater generated from petitioners laundry
washing activities was discharged directly to the
San Francisco Del Monte River. Furthermore,
the Investigation Report stated that petitioners
plant was operating without LLDA clearance,
AC/PO-ESI, and Discharge Permit from LLDA.
On 5 September 2001, the Environmental
Quality Management Division of LLDA
conducted wastewater sampling of petitioners
effluent. The result of the laboratory analysis
showed non-compliance with effluent standards
particularly Total Suspended Solids (TSS),
Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand
(BOD),
Oil/Grease Concentration and Color Units.
Consequently, LLDA issued to petitioner a
Notice of Violation. Petitioner submitted its
application for LLDA Clearance and Discharge
Permit and informed LLDA that it would
undertake the necessary measures to abate the
water pollution. No compliance followed. It was
reported that petitioners wastewater treatment
facility was under construction. Subsequently,
another wastewater sampling was conducted
but the results still failed. A Pollution Control
and Abatement case was filed against petitioner
before the LLDA.

Petitioner requested another test. This time, it

showed compliance. Respondent prayed that
the Notice of Violation issued on 30 October
2001 and its corresponding daily penalty be set
aside and that the imposable penalty be
reckoned from the date of actual hearing and not
on 5 September 2001. It is respondents position
that the Notice of Violation and the imposition of
the penalty had no legal and factual basis
because it had already installed the necessary
wastewater treatment to abate the water
pollution. This Public Hearing Committee finds
respondents arguments devoid of merit.
Presidential Decree No. 984 prohibits the
discharge of pollutive wastewater and any
person found in violation thereof shall pay a fine
not
exceeding
five
thousand
pesos
(PhP5,000.00) [sic] for every day during which
such violation continues. The mere discharge of
wastewater not conforming with the effluent
standard is the violation referred to in PD No.
984. CA held that LLDA has the power to impose
fines.
ISSUE:
WON LLDA have the implied power to impose
fines as set forth in PD 984.
HELD:
YES.
Presidential Decree No. 984 (PD 984) created
and established the NPCC under the Office of
the President. EO 192, which reorganized the
DENR, created the Pollution Adjudication Board
under the Office of the DENR Secretary which
assumed the powers and functions of the NPCC
with respect to adjudication of pollution cases.
Under Executive Order No. 927 (EO 927), LLDA
is granted additional powers and functions to
effectively perform its role and to enlarge its
prerogatives of monitoring, licensing and
enforcement. Under Section 4(h) of EO 927,
LLDA may "exercise such powers and perform
such other functions as may be necessary to
Page | 1

carry out its duties and responsibilities." In

Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of
Appeals, the Court upheld the power of LLDA to
issue an ex-parte cease and desist order even if
such power is not expressly conferred by law,
holding that an administrative agency has also
such powers as are necessarily implied in the
exercise of its express powers. The Court ruled
that LLDA, in the exercise of its express powers
under its charter, as a regulatory and quasijudicial body with respect to pollution cases in
the Laguna Lake region, has the implied
authority to issue a "cease and desist order." In
the same manner, we hold that 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.

Page | 2

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 165299

Consequently, LLDA issued to petitioner a

Notice of Violation7 dated 30 October 2001
which states:

December 18, 2009

PACIFIC STEAM LAUNDRY, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
Respondent.

THE
GENERAL
MANAGER
PACIFIC
STEAM
LAUNDRY,
INC.
114
Roosevelt
Avenue,
Brgy.
Paraiso
Quezon City

DECISION

Subject:
Notice
PH-01-10-303

of

Violation

CARPIO, J.:
Gentlemen:
The Case
1

This is a petition for review of the Decision

dated 30 June 2004 and the Resolution dated 8
September 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 75238.
The Facts

Petitioner
Pacific
Steam
Laundry,
Inc.
(petitioner) is a company engaged in the
business of laundry services. On 6 June 2001,
the Environmental Management Bureau of the
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) endorsed to respondent
Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) the
inspection report on the complaint of black
smoke emission from petitioners plant located
at 114 Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City.3 On 22
June 2001, LLDA conducted an investigation
and found that untreated wastewater generated
from petitioners laundry washing activities was
discharged directly to the San Francisco Del
Monte River. Furthermore, the Investigation
Report4 stated that petitioners plant was
operating without LLDA clearance, AC/PO-ESI,
and Discharge Permit from LLDA. On 5
September 2001, the Environmental Quality
Management Division of LLDA conducted
wastewater sampling of petitioners effluent. 5
The result of the laboratory analysis showed
non-compliance
with
effluent
standards
particularly Total Suspended Solids (TSS),
Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand
(BOD),
Oil/Grease Concentration and Color Units. 6

This refers to the findings of the inspection and

result of laboratory analysis of the wastewater
collected from your firm last 5 September 2001.
Evaluation of the results of laboratory analysis
showed that your plants effluent failed to
conform with the 1990 Revised Effluent
Standard for Inland Water Class "C" specifically
in terms of TSS, BOD, Oil/Grease and Color.
(Please see attached laboratory analysis)
In view thereof, you are hereby directed to
submit corrective measures to abate/control the
water pollution caused by your firm, within fifteen
(15) days from receipt of this letter.
Furthermore, pursuant to Section 9 of
Presidential Decree No. 984, PACIFIC STEAM
LAUNDRY, INC. is hereby ordered to pay a
penalty of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) per
day of discharging pollutive wastewater to be
computed from 5 September 2001, the date of
inspection until full cessation of discharging
pollutive wastewater and a fine of Five
Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) per year for
operating
without
the
necessary
clearance/permits from the Authority.
Very truly yours,
(signed)
CALIXTO
General Manager

R.

CATAQUIZ

Page | 3

Petitioner submitted its application for LLDA

Clearance and Discharge Permit and informed
LLDA that it would undertake the necessary
measures to abate the water pollution.8 On 1
March 2002, a compliance monitoring was
conducted and the result of the laboratory
analysis9 still showed non-compliance with
effluent standards in terms of TSS, BOD,
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), and
Oil/Grease Concentration. It was reported that
petitioners wastewater treatment facility was
under construction. Subsequently, another
wastewater sampling was conducted on 25 April
2002 but the results10 still failed to conform with
the effluent standards in terms of Oil/Grease
Concentration.
Meanwhile, on 15 April 2002, a Pollution Control
and Abatement case was filed against petitioner
before the LLDA. During the public hearing on
30 April 2002, LLDA informed petitioner of its
continuous non-compliance with the effluent
standards. Petitioner requested for another
wastewater sampling which was conducted on 5
June 2002. The laboratory results11 of the
wastewater sampling finally showed compliance
with the effluent standard in all parameters. On 9
August 2002, another public hearing was held to
discuss the dismissal of the water pollution case
and the payment of the accumulated daily
penalty. According to LLDA, the penalty should
be reckoned from 5 September 2001, the date of
initial sampling, to 17 May 2002, the date LLDA
received the request for re-sampling. Petitioner
manifested that its wastewater discharge was
not on a daily basis. In its position paper 12 dated
25 August 2002, petitioner prayed that the
Notice of Violation dated 30 October 2001 be set
aside and the penalty and fine imposed be
reckoned from the date of actual hearing on 15
April 2002.1avvphil
On 16 September 2002, LLDA issued an Order
to Pay,13 the pertinent portion of which reads:
Respondent prayed that the Notice of Violation
issued on 30 October 2001 and its
corresponding daily penalty be set aside and
that the imposable penalty be reckoned from the

date of actual hearing and not on 5 September

2001. It is respondents position that the Notice
of Violation and the imposition of the penalty had
no legal and factual basis because it had
already installed the necessary wastewater
treatment to abate the water pollution.
This
Public
Hearing
Committee
finds
respondents arguments devoid of merit.
Presidential Decree No. 984 prohibits the
discharge of pollutive wastewater and any
person found in violation thereof shall pay a fine
not
exceeding
five
thousand
pesos
(PhP5,000.00) [sic] for every day during which
such violation continues. The mere discharge of
wastewater not conforming with the effluent
standard is the violation referred to in PD No.
984. Sample of respondents effluent was
collected on 5 September 2001 and the results
of laboratory analysis confirmed the quality
thereof. Thus, a notice of violation was issued
against the respondent after it was established
that its discharge was pollutive. The fact that the
subsequent re-sampling reported compliance
with the effluent standard does not negate the 5
September 2001 initial sampling. Respondent
passed the standard because it already
implemented remedial measures to abate the
water pollution. It is therefore but just and proper
that the penalty should be imposed from the
date of initial sampling, 5 September 2001, to 17
May 2002, the date the request for re-sampling
was received by the Authority. The 5 June 2002
sampling confirmed that respondents effluent
already complied with the standard showing that
its water pollution has ceased. Respondent did
not submit any proof of its actual operation
hence, the penalty shall be computed for five (5)
working days per week, excluding Saturdays
and Sundays as well as legal holidays from 5
September 2001 to 17 May 2002, for a total of
one hundred seventy-two (172) days.
WHEREFORE,
premises
considered,
respondent Pacific steam Laundry, Inc. is hereby
ordered to pay the accumulated daily penalty
amounting to ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO
THOUSAND (PhP172,000.00) PESOS within
fifteen(15) days from receipt hereof as a
Page | 4

condition sine qua non for the dismissal of the

above-captioned case.
SO ORDERED.14
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration,
which the LLDA denied in its Order15 dated 27
November 2002.

correct deficiencies and clarify ambiguities that

"impede the accomplishment of the Authorities
goal," Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos
promulgated P.D. 813. Finally, to enable the
LLDA to effectively perform its role, Former
President Marcos further issued E.O. 927, which
granted the LLDA additional powers and
functions, viz:

Petitioner then filed with the Court of Appeals a

petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court. The Court of Appeals denied the petition,
as well as the motion for reconsideration filed by
petitioner. Hence, this petition.

"Section 4. Additional Powers and Functions. The authority shall have the following powers
and functions:

The Court of Appeals Ruling

(d) Make, alter or modify orders requiring the

discontinuance of pollution specifying the
conditions and time within which such
continuance must be accomplished.

The Court of Appeals held that LLDA has the

power to impose fines, thus:
Concededly, the power to impose administrative
fines in pollution abatement cases was
expressly granted under Section 9 of P.D. 984 to
the now defunct National Pollution Control
Commission (NPCC), thus:
"Section 9. Penalties. - (a) Any person found
violating or failing to comply with any order,
decision or regulation of the Commission for the
control or abatement of pollution shall pay a fine
not exceeding five thousand pesos per day for
every day during which such violation or default
continues; and the Commission is hereby
authorized and empowered to impose the fine
after due notice and hearing."
Nonetheless, it may be well to recall that the
LLDA was created under R.A. 4850 with the end
view of promoting and accelerating the
development and balanced growth of the
Laguna Lake area and the surrounding
provinces, and carrying out the development of
the Laguna Lake Region with due regard and
adequate
provisions
for
environmental
management and control, preservation of the
quality of human life and ecological systems,
and the preservation of undue ecological
disturbances, deterioration and pollution. To

xxx

xxx
(i) Exercise such powers and perform such other
functions as may be necessary to carry out its
duties and responsibilities under this Executive
order."
Indeed, the express grant of power to impose
administrative fines as couched in the language
of P.D. 984 was not reproduced in E.O. 927,
however, it can be logically implied from LLDAs
authority to exercise the power to "make, alter or
modify orders requiring the discontinuance of
pollution." In addition, the clear intendment of
E.O. 927 to clothe LLDA not only with the
express powers granted to it, but also those
implied, incidental and necessary for the
exercise of its express powers can be easily
discerned from the grant of the general power to
"exercise (such) powers and perform such other
functions as may be necessary to carry out its
duties and responsibilities."
This finds support in the wealth of authorities in
American Jurisprudence, citing adherence of
other courts to the principle that the authority
given to an agency should be liberally construed
in order to permit the agency to carry out its
Page | 5

statutory responsibilities. This is especially true

where the agency is concerned with protecting
the public health and welfare, the delegation of
authority to the agency is liberally construed.

under the Office of the DENR Secretary which

assumed the powers and functions of the NPCC
with respect to adjudication of pollution cases.
Section 19 of EO 192 provides:

The LLDA, as an agency implementing pollution

laws, rules and regulations, should be given
some measures of flexibility in its operations in
order not to hamper it unduly in the fulfillment of
its objectives. How could it effectively perform its
role if in every act of violation, it must resort to
other venue for the appropriate remedy, because
it is impotent by itself to punish or deal with it? 16
(Emphasis in the original)
The Issues
Petitioner raises two issues:
1. Does the respondent LLDA have the
implied power to impose fines as set
forth in PD 984?
2. Does the grant of implied power to
LLDA to impose penalties violate the
rule on non-delegation of legislative
powers?17
The Ruling of the Court
We find the petition without merit.
Power of LLDA to Impose Fines
Petitioner asserts that LLDA has no power to
impose fines since such power to impose penal
sanctions, which was once lodged with the
National Pollution Control Commission (NPCC),
is now assumed by the Pollution Adjudication
Board pursuant to Executive Order No. 192 (EO
192).18
We disagree with petitioner.

SEC. 19. Pollution Adjudication Board. There

is hereby created a Pollution Adjudication Board
under the Office of the Secretary. The Board
shall be composed of the Secretary as
Chairman, two (2) Undersecretaries as may be
designated by the Secretary, the Director of
Environmental Management, and three (3)
others to be designated by the Secretary as
members. The Board shall assume the powers
and
functions
of
the
Commission/Commissioners of the National
Pollution Control Commission with respect to the
adjudication of pollution cases under Republic
Act 3931 and Presidential Decree 984,
particularly with respect to Section 6 letters e, f,
g, j, k, and p of P.D. 984. The Environmental
Management Bureau shall serve as the
Secretariat of the Board. These powers and
functions may be delegated to the regional
officers of the Department in accordance with
rules and regulations to be promulgated by the
Board. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 6, paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (j), (k), and (p)
of PD 984 referred to above states:
SEC. 6. Powers and Functions. The
Commission shall have the following powers and
functions:
xxx
(e) Issue orders or decisions to compel
compliance with the provisions of this
Decree and its implementing rules and
regulations only after proper notice and
hearing.

Presidential Decree No. 984 (PD 984)19 created

and established the NPCC under the Office of
the President. EO 192, which reorganized the
DENR, created the Pollution Adjudication Board
Page | 6

(f) Make, alter or modify orders requiring

the
discontinuance
of
pollution
specifying the conditions and the time
within which such discontinuance must
be accomplished.
(g) Issue, renew, or deny permits, under
such conditions as it may determine to
be reasonable, for the prevention and
abatement of pollution, for the discharge
of sewage, industrial waste, or for the
installation or operation of sewage
works and industrial disposal system or
parts thereof: Provided, however, the
Commission, by rules and regulations,
may require subdivisions, condominium,
hospitals, public buildings and other
similar human settlements to put up
appropriate central sewerage system
and sewage treatment works, except
that no permits shall be required of any
new sewage works or changes to or
extensions of existing works that
discharge only domestic or sanitary
wastes from a single residential building
provided with septic tanks or their
equivalent. The Commission may
impose reasonable fees and charges for
the issuance or renewal of all permits
herein required.
xxx
(j) Serve as arbitrator for the
determination
of
reparations,
or
restitution of the damages and losses
resulting from pollution.
(k) Deputize in writing or request
assistance of appropriate government
agencies or instrumentalities for the
purpose of enforcing this Decree and its
implementing rules and regulations and
the orders and decisions of the
Commission.
xxx

(p) Exercise such powers and perform

such other functions as may be
necessary to carry out its duties and
responsibilities under this Decree.
On the other hand, LLDA is a special agency
created under Republic Act No. 4850 (RA
4850)20 to manage and develop the Laguna
Lake region, comprising of the provinces of Rizal
and Laguna and the cities of San Pablo, Manila,
Pasay, Quezon and Caloocan. RA 4850, as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 813 (PD
813),21 mandates LLDA to carry out the
development of the Laguna Lake region, with
due regard and adequate provisions for
environmental
management
and
control,
preservation of the quality of human life and
ecological systems, and the prevention of undue
ecological disturbances, deterioration and
pollution.22
Under Executive Order No. 927 (EO 927),23
LLDA is granted additional powers and functions
to effectively perform its role and to enlarge its
prerogatives of monitoring, licensing and
enforcement, thus:
SECTION 4. Additional Powers and Functions.
The Authority [LLDA] shall have the following
powers and functions:
a)
Issue
standards,
rules
and
regulations to govern the approval of
plans and specifications for sewage
works and industrial waste disposal
systems and the issuance of permits in
accordance with the provisions of this
Executive
Order;
inspect
the
construction and maintenance of
sewage works and industrial waste
disposal systems for compliance to
plans.
b) Adopt, prescribe, and promulgate
rules and regulations governing the
Procedures of the Authority with respect
to hearings, plans, specifications,
designs, and other data for sewage
Page | 7

works and industrial waste disposal

system, the filing of reports, the
issuance of permits, and other rules and
regulations
for
the
proper
implementation and enforcement of this
Executive Order.
c) Issue orders or decisions to compel
compliance with the provisions of this
Executive Order and its implementing
rules and regulations only after proper
notice and hearing.
d) Make, alter or modify orders requiring
the
discontinuance
of
pollution
specifying the conditions and the time
within which such discontinuance must
be accomplished.
e) Issue, renew or deny permits, under
such conditions as it may determine to
be reasonable, for the prevention and
abatement of pollution, for the discharge
of sewage, industrial waste, or for the
installation or operation of sewage
works and industrial disposal system or
parts thereof: Provided, however, that
the Authority, by rules and regulations,
may
require
subdivisions,
condominiums,
hospitals,
public
buildings and other similar human
settlements to put up appropriate central
sewerage system and sewage treatment
works, except that no permits shall be
required of any new sewage works or
changes to or extensions of existing
works that discharge only domestic or
sanitary wastes from a single residential
building provided with septic tanks or
their equivalent. The Authority may
impose reasonable fees and charges for
the issuance or renewal of all permits
herein required.

f) After due notice and hearing, the

Authority may also revoke, suspend or
modify any permit issued under this
Order whenever the same is necessary
to prevent or abate pollution.
g) Deputize in writing or request
assistance of appropriate government
agencies or instrumentalities for the
purpose of enforcing this executive
Order and its implementing rules and
regulations and the orders and decision
of the Authority.
h) Authorize its representative to enter
at all reasonable times any property of
the public dominion and private property
devoted to industrial, manufacturing
processing or commercial use without
doing damage, for the purpose of
inspecting and investigating conditions
relating to pollution or possible or
imminent pollution.
i) Exercise such powers and perform
such other functions as may be
necessary to carry out its duties and
responsibilities under this Executive
Order. (Emphasis supplied)
A comparison of the powers and functions of the
Pollution Adjudication Board and the LLDA
reveals substantial similarity. Both the Pollution
Adjudication Board and the LLDA are
empowered, among others, to: (1) make, alter or
modify orders requiring the discontinuance of
pollution; (2) issue, renew, or deny permits for
the prevention and abatement of pollution, for
the discharge of sewage, industrial waste, or for
the installation or operation of sewage works
and industrial disposal system; and (3) exercise
such powers and perform such other functions
necessary to carry out their duties and
responsibilities. The difference is that while
Section 19 of EO 192 vested the Pollution
Adjudication Board with the specific power to
adjudicate pollution cases in general,24 the
scope of authority of LLDA to adjudicate
Page | 8

pollution cases is limited to the Laguna Lake

region as defined by RA 4850, as amended.
Thus, in Laguna Lake Development Authority v.
Court of Appeals,25 the Court held that the
adjudication of pollution cases generally pertains
to the Pollution Adjudication Board, except
where a special law, such as the LLDA Charter,
provides for another forum. Indeed, even PD
984 authorizes the LLDA to undertake pollution
control activities within LLDAs development
area. Section 10 of PD 984 provides:
SEC. 10. Jurisdiction. The Commission
[NPCC] shall have no jurisdiction over
waterworks or sewage system operated by the
Metropolitan Waterworks Sewerage System, but
the rules and regulations issued by the
Commission for the protection and prevention of
pollution under the authority herein granted shall
supersede and prevail over any rules or
regulations as may heretofore have been issued
by
other
government
agencies
or
instrumentalities on the same subject.
In case of development projects involving
specific human settlement sites or integrated
regional or subregional projects, such as the
Tondo Foreshore Development Authority and the
Laguna Lake Development Authority, the
Commission shall consult with the authorities
charged with the planning and execution of such
projects to ensure that their pollution control
standards comply with those of the Commission.
Once minimum pollution standards are
established and agreed upon, the development
authorities concerned may, by mutual agreement
and prior consultation with the Commission,
undertake the pollution control activities
themselves. (Boldfacing and underscoring
supplied)1avvphi1

In this case, the DENRs Environmental

Management Bureau endorsed to LLDA the
pollution complaint against petitioner. Under
Section 16 of EO 192, the Environmental
Management Bureau assumed the powers and
functions of the NPCC except with respect to
adjudication of pollution cases, thus:
SEC. 16. Environmental Management Bureau.
There is hereby created an Environmental
Management
Bureau.
The
National
Environmental Protection Council (NEPC), the
National Pollution Control Commission (NPCC)
and the Environmental Center of the Philippines
(ECP), are hereby abolished and their powers
and functions are hereby integrated into the
Environmental
Management
Bureau
in
accordance with Section 24(c) hereof, subject to
Section 19 hereof. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
The Environmental Management Bureau also
serves as the Secretariat of the Pollution
Adjudication Board, and its Director is one of the
members of the Pollution Adjudication Board.
Clearly, by endorsing to LLDA the pollution
complaint against petitioner, the Environmental
Management Bureau deferred to LLDAs
jurisdiction over the pollution complaint against
petitioner.
Although the Pollution Adjudication Board
assumed the powers and functions of the NPCC
with respect to adjudication of pollution cases,
this does not preclude LLDA from assuming
jurisdiction of pollution cases within its area of
responsibility and to impose fines as penalty.
Thus, in the recent case of The Alexandra
Condominium Corporation v. Laguna Lake
Development Authority,26 the Court affirmed the
ruling of the Court of Appeals which sustained
LLDAs Order, requiring petitioner therein to pay
a fine of P1,062,000 representing penalty for
pollutive wastewater discharge. Although
petitioner in that case did not challenge LLDAs
authority
to
impose
fine,
the
Court
acknowledged the power of LLDA to impose
fines, holding that under Section 4-A of RA 4850,
Page | 9

as amended, LLDA is entitled to compensation

for damages resulting from failure to meet
established water and effluent standards.
Section 4-A of RA 4850, as amended, reads:
SEC. 4-A. Compensation for damages to the
water and aquatic resources of Laguna de Bay
and its tributaries resulting from failure to meet
established water and effluent quality standards
or from such other wrongful act or omission of a
person, private or public, juridical or otherwise,
punishable under the law shall be awarded to
the Authority to be earmarked for water quality
control and management.
Under Section 4(h) of EO 927, LLDA may
"exercise such powers and perform such other
functions as may be necessary to carry out its
duties and responsibilities." In Laguna Lake
Development Authority v. Court of Appeals,27 the
Court upheld the power of LLDA to issue an exparte cease and desist order even if such power
is not expressly conferred by law, holding that an
administrative agency has also such powers as
are necessarily implied in the exercise of its
express powers. The Court ruled that LLDA, in
the exercise of its express powers under its
charter, as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body
with respect to pollution cases in the Laguna
Lake region, has the implied authority to issue a
"cease and desist order." In the same manner,
we hold that 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.
No Undue Delegation of Legislative Power

pollution complaint against petitioner and

conducted wastewater sampling of petitioners
effluent. It was only after the investigation result
showing petitioners failure to meet the
established water and effluent quality standards
that LLDA imposed a fine against petitioner.
LLDA then imposed upon petitioner a penalty of
P1,000 per day of discharging pollutive
wastewater. The P1,000 penalty per day is in
accordance with the amount of penalty
prescribed under PD 984:
SEC. 8. Prohibitions. No person shall throw,
run, drain, or otherwise dispose into any of the
water, air and/or land resources of the
Philippines, or cause, permit, suffer to be
thrown, run, drain, allow to seep or otherwise
dispose thereto any organic or inorganic matter
or any substance in gaseous or liquid form that
shall cause pollution thereof.
xxx
SEC 9. Penalties. x x x
(b) Any person who shall violate any of the
previous provisions of Section Eight of this
Decree or its implementing rules and
regulations, or any Order or Decision of the
Commission, shall be liable to a penalty of not to
exceed one thousand pesos each day during
which
the violation
continues,
or by
imprisonment of from two years to six years, or
by both fine and imprisonment, and in addition
such person may be required or enjoined from
continuing such violation as hereinafter
provided.

Petitioner contends that if LLDA is deemed to

have implied power to impose penalties, then
LLDA will have unfettered discretion to
determine for itself the penalties it may impose,
which will amount to undue delegation of
legislative power.

x x x (Emphasis supplied)

We do not agree. Contrary to petitioners

contention, LLDAs power to impose fines is not
unrestricted. In this case, LLDA investigated the

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We

AFFIRM the Decision dated 30 June 2004 and

Clearly, there are adequate statutory limitations

on LLDAs power to impose fines which obviates
unbridled discretion in the exercise of such
power.

Page | 10

the Resolution dated 8 September 2004 of the

Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 75238.

SO ORDERED.

Page | 11