Universal Robina VS LLDA
It entails lesser
Facts:
Universal Robina Corp. (petitioner) is engaged in, among
other things, the manufacture of animal feeds at its plant in
Bagong Ilog, Pasig City.
Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA), respondent,
through its Pollution Control Division Monitoring and
Enforcement Section, after conducting on March 14, 2000 a
laboratory analysis of petitioners corn oil refinery plants
wastewater, found that it failed to comply with government
standards provided under Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Orders (DAOs) Nos.
34 and 35, series of 1990. Thereafter, an Ex-Parte Order
requiring petitioner to explain why no order should be issued
for the cessation of their plant for polluting pasig river.
Still on Aug 31 2000, another analysis of petitioners
wastewater, which showed its continued failure to conform
to its effluent standard in terms of Total Suspended Solids
(TSS), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Color and
Oil/Grease.
It was only in 2003 that petitioner informed respondent of
their intent to improve their system. The improvement came
On May 9, 2007 on its request,[2] a re-sampling of petitioners
wastewater was conducted which showed that petitioners
plant finally complied with government standards.
Thereafter, petitioner now filed a request for reduction of
penalties. (560 days ra daw or 560k imbis sa 1247 days which
ang fine nga gi hatag sa LLDA is 1.247M. Ana ang petitioner
nga wa sila nag operate daily and gi apil daw ang days nga
nag rehabilitate pa ang plant)
Appelate court then affirmed the decision by LLDA
Issue: WON LLDA Committed abuse of discretion in
implementing the fines.
Held:
LLDA did not. Petition must fail.
First, wala ni comply with exhaustion of administrative
remedies ang petitioner.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a
cornerstone of our judicial system. The thrust of the rule is
that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out
their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the
specialized areas of their respective competence. The
rationale for this doctrine is obvious.
expenses and provides for the speedier resolution of
controversies. Comity and convenience also impel courts of
justice to shy away from a dispute until the system of
administrative redress has been completed.
Petitioner should have appealed to the Secretary of DENR.
(EO 192 ang nag reorganize sa DENR. Naghatag pud sa
secretary the power to arbitrate in determining reparation,
losses from pollution and restitution issues)
Second, wala gi deny sa LLDA ang due process for petitioner.
Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the
charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or
defend himself. Here, petitioner URC was given ample
opportunities to be heard it was given show cause orders and
allowed to participate in hearing to rebut the allegation
against it of discharging pollutive wastewater to the Pasig
River, it was given the chance to present evidences in support
of its claims, it was notified of the assailed Order to Pay, and
it was allowed to file a motion for reconsideration. Given
these, we are of the view that the minimum requirements
of administrative due process have been complied with in
this case.
Lastly, the assailed LLDA orders of January 21, 2008 and July
11, 2008 correctly reckoned the two periods within which
petitioner was found to have continued discharging pollutive
wastewater and applied the penalty as provided for under
Article VI, Section 32 of LLDA Resolution No. 33, Series of
1996.
It is noted that during the hearing on June 19, 2007, the LLDA
gave petitioner the opportunity to submit within fifteen (15)
days.any valid documents to show proof of its non-operating
dates that would be necessary for the possible reduction of
the accumulated daily penalties,but petitioner failed to
comply therewith.
Thus when petitioner filed a manifestation and motion to
which it attached its Daily Reports and certificates, it was not
verified and is in derogation of Rule X Sec 2 of the 2004
Revised Rules, Regulations and Procedures Implementing
Republic Act No. 4850. SA ATO PA SELF SERVING BALE ANG
DOCUS NGA GI PASS BA
Petitioner asserts that LLDA had not credited it for
undertaking remedial measures to rehabilitate its wastewater
treatment facility, despite the prohibitive costs and at a time
when its income from the agro-industrial business was
already severely affected by a poor business climate; and that
the enforcement of the assailed LLDA orders amounted to a
gross disincentive to its business.

Without belaboring petitioners assertions, it must be

underscored that the protection of the environment,
including bodies of water, is no less urgent or vital than the
pressing concerns of private enterprises, big or small.
Everyone must do their share to conserve the national
patrimonys meager resources for the benefit of not only this
generation, but of those to follow. The length of time alone it
took petitioner to upgrade its WTF (from 2003 to 2007), a
move arrived at only under threat of continuing sanctions,
militates against any genuine concern for the well-being of
the countrys waterways.