Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 64 views

    Pollution Adjudication Board v. Court of Appeals (195 SCRA 112)

    Uploaded by

    MaeBartolome
    The Pollution Adjudication Board issued an ex parte cease and desist order against Solar Textile Finishing Corporation for discharging untreated wastewater. Solar filed a petition for certiorari, which was dismissed. The Court of Appeals later reversed, claiming Solar was denied due process. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board's authority to issue ex parte orders when pollution standards are exceeded. It also dismissed Solar's claim that certiorari was the proper remedy, as an appeal was the correct approach.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pollution Adjudication Board v. Court of Appeals (195 SCRA 112)

    Uploaded by

    MaeBartolome
    64 views1 page
    The Pollution Adjudication Board issued an ex parte cease and desist order against Solar Textile Finishing Corporation for discharging untreated wastewater. Solar filed a petition for certiorari, which was dismissed. The Court of Appeals later reversed, claiming Solar was denied due process. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board's authority to issue ex parte orders when pollution standards are exceeded. It also dismissed Solar's claim that certiorari was the proper remedy, as an appeal was the correct approach.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    31. Pollution Adjudication Board v. Court of Appeals (195 SCRA 112)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Pollution Adjudication Board issued an ex parte cease and desist order against Solar Textile Finishing Corporation for discharging untreated wastewater. Solar filed a petition for certiorari, which was dismissed. The Court of Appeals later reversed, claiming Solar was denied due process. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board's authority to issue ex parte orders when pollution standards are exceeded. It also dismissed Solar's claim that certiorari was the proper remedy, as an appeal was the correct approach.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    64 views1 page

    Pollution Adjudication Board v. Court of Appeals (195 SCRA 112)

    Uploaded by

    MaeBartolome
    The Pollution Adjudication Board issued an ex parte cease and desist order against Solar Textile Finishing Corporation for discharging untreated wastewater. Solar filed a petition for certiorari, which was dismissed. The Court of Appeals later reversed, claiming Solar was denied due process. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board's authority to issue ex parte orders when pollution standards are exceeded. It also dismissed Solar's claim that certiorari was the proper remedy, as an appeal was the correct approach.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Pollution Adjudication Board v.

    Court of Appeals
    [195 SCRA 112; March 11, 1991]

    FACTS: The Pollution Adjudication Board (Board) sought to review the decision of the Court of Appeals
    to dismiss Solar Textile Finishing Corportation’s (Solar) petition for certiorari and remanded the case to
    the trial court for further proceedings.

    The board issued an ex parte Cease and Desist order to stop Solar’s use of wastewater pollution source
    installations which were discharging untreated wastewater into a canal leading adjacent to Tullahan-
    Tinejeros River. A motion for reconsideration was filed by Solar, and the Board, granting the motion,
    allowed Solar to operate temporarily for to proceed with further inspection. However, Solar went to the
    RTC to file a petition for certiorari against the Board. The petition was dismissed due to Solar availing the
    improper remedy and that the temporary operation rendered the petition moot and academic.

    The Court of Appeals later reversed the decision on the grounds that Solar had availed the proper
    remedy and that there is a question of lack of due process to be settled. The Board claims that they had
    acted under the authority given to them by P.D. No. 984, Sec. 7 to issue ex parte orders 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 Board. Solar, on the other hand,
    contends that under the Board’s rules and regulations, an ex parte order may only be issued in the
    discharge poses immediate threat to life, public health, safety or welfare, or to animal and plant life.

    ISSUE(s):

    1. Whether or not the Orders issued by the board were in accordance with law.
    2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court on the ground that Solar
    had been denied due process due process by the Board.

    RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the Board’s claim that they have acted under the authority given
    to them by P.D. No. 984, Sec. 7. The Board is given authority to issue ex parte Orders: a) whenever the
    wastes discharged by the establishment pose an immediate threat to life, public health, safety or
    welfare, or to animal or plant life,” or b) whenever such discharges or wastes exceed “the allowable
    standards set by the Board.” It is not essential that the Board prove that “an immediate threat to life,
    public health, safety or welfare, or to animal or plant life” exists before the ex parte Order may be
    issued. It is enough that the discharges of wastes exceed the allowable standards set by the Board.

    The Supreme Court also dismissed the Solar’s claim that a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy in
    this case. Since it was concluded that the Writ of Execution is entirely within the lawful authority of the
    Board, the trial court did not err in dismissing such petition, and the proper remedy was an appeal from
    the trial court to the Court of Appeals, as Solar did in fact appeal.

    You might also like