Donald Mead vs. Hon. Manuel Argel G.R. No. L-41958 July 20, 1982 Facts

Donald Mead vs. Hon.
Manuel Argel there were no findings that Solar's wastewater discharged posed such
G.R. No. L-41958 July 20, 1982 a threat.
FACTS: ISSUE:
Petitioner Donald Mead assailed the legal personality of the Provincial Whether or not the Pollution Adjudication Board has legal authority to
Fiscal to file an information against him for his alleged violation of RA issue the Order and Writ of Execution against Solar Textile Finishing
No. 3931 or An Act Creating a National Water and Air Pollution Control Corporation. YES.
Commission. Petitioner averred that the National Water and Air
Pollution Control Commission created under the said law has the RULING:
authority to hear cases involving violations under the same. Section 7(a) of P.D. No. 984 authorized petitioner Board to issue ex
ISSUES: parte cease and desist orders under the following circumstances:
Whether or not the filing of the information by the provincial fiscal was (a) Public Hearing. . . . Provided, That whenever the Commission finds
proper. prima facie evidence that the discharged sewage or wastes are of
RULING: immediate threat to life, public health, safety or welfare, or to animal or
The filing by the Provincial Fiscal of the case was premature sans the plant life, or exceeds the allowable standards set by the Commission,
findings of the Commission on the matter. the Commissioner may issue an ex-parte order directing the
Petitioner was being sued for the offense of allegedly causing pollution discontinuance of the same or the temporary suspension or cessation
of a waterway (highway canal)(Sec 9). The Court held that the of operation of the establishment or person generating such sewage
exclusive authority to determine whether or not ‘pollution’ did exist is or wastes without the necessity of a prior public hearing. The said ex-
vested in the Commission, who is in better position to determine the parte order shall be immediately executory and shall remain in force
same for such requires specialized knowledge of technical and until said establishment or person prevents or abates the said pollution
scientific matters which are not ordinarily within the competence of within the allowable standards or modified or nullified by a competent
Fiscals or of those sitting in a court of justice (Sec 8). court.
Unless the case involves that of nuisance under the Civil Code or until The Court found that the Order and Writ of Execution issued by
there is a ruling by the Commission on the alleged act of pollution, no petitioner Board were entirely within its lawful authority Ex parte cease
court action shall be initiated (Sec8). and desist orders are permitted by law and regulations in situations
Without a prior determination or finding by the Commission that the like in this case. The relevant pollution control statute and
provisions of the subject law had been violated, the provincial Fiscal implementing regulations were enacted and promulgated in the
lacked the authority to file the case against petitioner. exercise of that pervasive, sovereign power to protect the safety,
health, and general welfare and comfort of the public, as well as the
protection of plant and animal life, commonly designated as the police
Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) vs. CA [G.R. No. 93891 March power. It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary
11, 1991] requirements of procedural due process yield to the necessities of
protecting vital public interests like those here involved, through the
Facts: exercise of police power. Hence, the trial court did not err when it
Respondent, Solar Textile Finishing Corporation is involved in dismissed Solar's petition for certiorari. It follows that the proper
bleaching, rinsing and dyeing textiles with untreated wastewater which remedy was an appeal from the trial court to the Court of Appeals, as
were being discharged directly into a canal leading to the adjacent Solar did in fact appeal. The Court gave due course on the Petition for
Tullahan-Tinejeros River. On September 22, 1988, petitioner Pollution Review and the Decision of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution
Adjudication Board issued an ex parte Order based on 2 findings made were set aside. The Order of petitioner Board and the Writ of
on Solar Textile Finishing Corportion’s plant, directing Solar Execution, as well as the decision of the trial court were reinstated,
immediately to cease and desist from utilizing its wastewater pollution without prejudice to the right of Solar to contest the correctness of the
source installations as they were clearly in violation of Section 8 of basis of the Board's Order and Writ of Execution at a public hearing
Presidential Decree No. 984 (Pollution Control Law) and Section 103 before the Board.
of its Implementing Rules and Regulations and the 1982 Effluent
Regulations.
Solar then filed a motion for reconsideration which was granted by the
Pollution Adjudication Board for a temporary operation. However,
Solar went to the RTC for certiorari and preliminary injunction against
the Board but the same was dismissed. On appeal, the CA reversed
the Order of dismissal of the trial court and remanded the case for
further proceedings.
Petitioner Board claims that under P.D. No. 984, Section 7(a), it has
legal authority to issue ex parte orders to suspend the operations of
an establishment when there is prima facie evidence that such
establishment is discharging effluents or wastewater, the pollution
level of which exceeds the maximum permissible standards set by the
NPCC (now, the Board). Solar, on the other hand, contends that under
the Board's own rules and regulations, an ex parte order may issue
only if the effluents discharged pose an "immediate threat to life, public
health, safety or welfare, or to animal and plant life" and argued that

Donald Mead vs. Hon. Manuel Argel G.R. No. L-41958 July 20, 1982 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Donald Mead vs. Hon. Manuel Argel G.R. No. L-41958 July 20, 1982 Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Donald Mead vs. Hon. Manuel Argel G.R. No. L-41958 July 20, 1982 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Donald Mead vs. Hon.

You might also like