GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS

Technology Developers, Inc. v. CA

G.R. No. 94759
Concomitant with the need to promote investment and contribute to
the growth of the economy is the equally essential imperative of the
protection the health, nay the very lives of the people, from the deleterious
effect of the pollution of the environment.
Facts:
Technology Developers, a corporation engaged in the manufacture
and export of charcoal briquette, received a letter from acting mayor Pablo
Cruz ordering the full cessation of its plant in Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan
until further order and requesting its Plant Manager to bring before the office
of the mayor several permits including a Region III-Pollution of
Environment and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution Permit.
The letter was sent after the mayor received several complaints from
residents of Brgy. Guying, Sta. Maria, Bulacan regarding the offensive odor
and pollution emitted by the fumes of the plant.
Technology Developers failed to produce the said anti-pollution
permit. As a result, the acting mayor ordered that the plant premises be
padlocked, effectively causing the stoppage of operation. This was done
without previous and reasonable notice.
Issue:
Does the mayor have legal ground for ordering the stoppage of
Technology Developers, Inc.?
Ruling:
Yes. It must be recognized that the mayor of a town has as much
responsibility to protect its inhabitants from pollution, and by virtue of his
police power, he may deny the application for a permit to operate a business
or otherwise close the same unless appropriate measures are taken to control
and/or avoid injury to the health of the residents of the community from the
emissions in the operation of the business.
The closure order was issued only after an investigation was made
which revealed that the fumes emitted by the plant goes directly to the
surrounding houses and that no proper air pollution device has been
installed.
 RELEVANT PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTITUTION
Hernandez v. NPC
G.R. No. 145328
The far-reaching irreversible effects to human safety should be the
primordial concerns over presumed economic benefits per se as alleged by
the NAPOCOR. For what use will modernization serve if it proves to be a
scourge on an individual’s fundamental right, not just to health and safety,
but, ostensibly, to life preservation itself, in all of its desired quality?
Facts:
NAPOCOR began the construction of steel towers to support overhead
high-tension cables in connection with its 230 kilovolt Sucat-Araneta-
Balintawak Power Transmission Project, which passes through petitioners’
homes. This alarmed the petitioners for their research showed that said steel
towers could expose them to electromagnetic fields, which could cause
illnesses like cancer or leukemia.
When negotiations between the parties failed, petitioners filed a
complaint for damages and TRO or writ of preliminary injunction against
NAPOCOR, but the latter sought for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, citing
PD 1818.
PD 1818 provides that no court in the Philippines shall have
jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or injunction in any case, dispute,
or controversy involving government infrastructure project. The trial court
was of the view that PD 1818 is not applicable in the present case due to the
health risks involved.
Issue:
Should PD 1818 be applied in the case?
Ruling:
No. PD 1818 applies only to the issuance of injunctions or restraining
orders against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the
exercise of discretion in technical cases.
On issues clearly outside this dimension and involving questions of
law, courts could not be prevented from exercising their power to restrain
or prohibit administrative acts.
In the case at bar, petitioners sought issuance of preliminary injunction
on the ground that NAPOCOR impinged on their right to health as
enshrined in Art. II, Sec. 15 of the Constitution.
 Legaspi v. CSC
G.R. No. 72119
In every case, the availability of access to a particular public record
must be circumscribed by the nature of the information sought, i.e., (a) being
of public concern or one that involves public interest, and, (b) not being
exempted by law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee.
Facts:
Legaspi filed a Mandamus to compel respondent CSC to release
information on the civil service eligibility of persons employed as sanitarians
in the Health Department of Cebu City.
OSG contends that petitioner has no locus standi as he failed to show
his actual interest. The court ruled however that the petition on mandamus
is anchored upon the right of the people for information on matters of public
concern which is a public right.
Issue:
Should respondent CSC release the information?
Ruling:
Yes. The constitutional right to information on matters of public
information is grounded on Sec. 7, Article III and Sec. 28, Article II of the
1987 Constitution.

In the case at bar, the respondent does not have the discretion to
prohibit the access to information sought. It only has the authority to
regulate the manner of examination.

However, these constitutional guarantees are not absolute as they are

subject to the limitations as may be provided by law. The information sought
must not be exempted by law.

In the case at bar, the information sought to be released relates to a

public office which can be considered as a legitimate concern of citizens
(public office as public trust). Further, respondent failed to cite any provision
in the Civil Service Law which would limit the petitioner’s right to know
who are, and who are not civil service eligible. As a matter of fact, civil
service exam results are released in the public.
 CIVIL CODE PROVISIONS ON ENVIRONMENT (RA 386)
Filinvest v. IAC
G.R. No. 65935
Judicial discretion granted to the courts in the assessment of damages
must always be exercised with balanced restraints and measured objectivity.
Facts:
Nestor Sunga Jr., businessman and owner of the NBS Machineries and
the NAP-NAP purchased a Mazda minibus from Motorcenter, Inc. and
agreed to pay the balance on a monthly basis. Later, Sunga failed to pay his
obligations to the company which caused the confiscation of the minibus by
the officers of Filinvest Corp. where the minibus was mortgaged.
However, it was later revealed that Sunga’s account with Filinvest
Corp. was all in order and that the officers of the said corp. were at fault. The
minibus was returned 3 days after the confiscation.
Sunga then filed a case for damages against Filinvest Corp and was
granted. Respondent court increased the award of moral damages from
P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 and granted litigation expenses.
Issue:
Did the respondent court act with great abuse of discretion in
increasing the award of moral damages?
Ruling:
Yes. There is no dispute that Sunga is entitled to moral damages due
to the unwarranted seizure of the minibus. However, we find that the award
of moral damages even in the sum of P30,000.00 is excessive for it must be
emphasized that "damages are not intended to enrich the complainant at the
expense of a defendant. They are awarded only to enable the injured parties
to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the
moral sufferings the injured parties have undergone by reason of
defendant’s culpable action. In other words, the award of moral damages is
aimed at a restoration within the limits of the possible, of the spiritual status
quo ante; and therefore it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted."
 LLDA v. CA
G.R. No. 110120
Facts:
The City Government of Caloocan disposed of approximately 350 tons
of garbage daily in Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin against the wishes of local
residents, who were concerned about the environmental and health impact
of the dumpsite.
A complaint was filed with the LLDA The complaint sought to end the
operation of the dumpsite, because of the dumpsite’s “harmful effects on the
health of the residents and the possibility of pollution of the water content
of the surrounding area.”
LLDA found that the City Government of Caloocan was maintaining
the dumpsite without a legally required Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC). Subsequently, the LLDA issued a Cease and Desist Order
to the City Government of Caloocan, asking them to stop operating the
Camarin dumpsite.
The City Government of Caloocan filed a petition seeking to be
declared “the sole authority empowered to promote the health and safety
and enhance the right of the people in Caloocan City to a balanced ecology
within its territorial jurisdiction.”
The trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled that the Lake Laguna
Development Authority had no power and authority to issue a cease and
desist order enjoining the dumping of garbage.
Issue:
Does LLDA have authority to issue a cease and desist order enjoining
the dumping of garbage in Tala Estate?
Ruling:
Yes. Republic Act No. 4850 explicitly authorized the LLDA to “make,
alter or modify order requiring the discontinuance or pollution.” While the
LLDA was not expressly granted a power to make ex parte Cease and Desist
Orders, such a power was necessarily implied from its broad powers to
make orders stopping pollution. Otherwise, the LLDA would “be reduced
to a ‘toothless’ paper agency.”
 Magbanua v. IAC
G.R. Nos. 66870-72
Facts:
A case where all plaintiffs who were tenants of the defendants
complained the diversion of the free flow of water from their farm lots which
caused portions of their landholdings to dry up to their great damage and
prejudice and they were asked to vacate the areas for they could not plant
any longer for lack of water.
Issue:
Whether plaintiffs are entitled to damages
Ruling:
Yes. Because the closing of water flow to the petitioners’ farm lots
caused damage and prejudicial to them in their harvest. It has no showing
in the facts that petitioners were negligent but instead the respondents’ bad
faith which caused prejudice to the former. Under the law, the landowner
has the obligation to keep tenant in the peaceful and continuous cultivation
of his landholding. A disturbance of possession such as the act complained
of is violative of the law. Therefore, the court granted moral and exemplary
damages and Attorney’s fees to plaintiffs.
 Oposa v. Factoran
G.R. No. 101083
Facts:
This case is unique in that it is a class suit brought by 44 children,
through their parents, claiming that they bring the case in the name of “their
generation as well as those generations yet unborn.” Aiming to stop
deforestation, it was filed against the Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, seeking to have him cancel all the
timber license agreements (TLAs) in the country and to cease and desist from
accepting and approving more timber license agreements. The children
invoked their right to a balanced and healthful ecology and to protection by
the State in its capacity as parens patriae.
The petitioners claimed that the DENR Secretary's refusal to cancel the
TLAs and to stop issuing them was "contrary to the highest law of
humankind-- the natural law—and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-
preservation and perpetuation." The case was dismissed in the lower court,
invoking the law on non-impairment of contracts, so it was brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari.
Issue:
Does the children have legal standing?
Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that the children
had the legal standing to file the case based on the concept of
“intergenerational responsibility”. Their right to a healthy environment
carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding
generations. In this, the Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of
future generations. Also, the Court said, the law on non-impairment of
contracts must give way to the exercise of the police power of the state in the
interest of public welfare.
 Rodriguez v. IAC
G.R. No. 74816
Facts:
Plaintiffs filed an action for abatement of a public nuisance with
damages against defendant. After four extensions of time to file an answer
by defendant, Daytona moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and
cause of action. Motions denied, defendant was declared in default and
authorized plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte. The facts of the case at bar
shows that there is other nearby residents who were prejudiced by the
Daytona Corp. for the running of its business. It affected their health and
property. But in this case, the delay of the respondents to answer id
questionable and contrary to law.
Issue:
Whether petitioners have cause of action to file the case
2. Whether respondents are liable for damages
Ruling:
1. Yes. Because the business had greatly prejudiced their health and
property. The permit given to Daytona is valid but the conditions provided
were not met.
2. Yes. Respondents are liable for damages except nominal damages based
on the discretion of the court instead moral and actual damages were
awarded because sufficient evidence had supported as such.