Pollution Adjudication Board v. Court of Appeals digest

Pollution Adjudication Board v. Court of Appeals and Solar Textile Finishing Corporation G.R. No. 93891, March 11, 1991 FELICIANO, J.:

FACTS:

Solar Textile Finishing Corp. is a corporation engaged in bleaching, rinsing and dyeing textiles which was issued a cease and desist order from discharging untreated wastewater directly to the Tullahan-Tinejeros River by the Pollution Adjudication Board through its Chairman Fulgencio Factoran, Jr. Such order was based on the examination done by the Board which shows that 80% of the untreated wastewater of the corporation was directly discharged to the river which is highly pollutive. This order was based on the power of the Board pursuant to Sec. 7 of PD 984 and Sec.38 of its IRR. Solar received the order on Sept. 26, 1988 and the Writ of execution on March 31, 1989. Solar also filed a Motion for Reconsideration/ Appeal with the board and the board issued an order allowing Solar to temporarily operate in order to c onduct another examination. Solar filed a petition for Certiorari before the RTC of Quezon City which was later on dismissed on the ground that appeal and not certiorari is the proper remedy. The writ of execution was also rendered valid by the RTC. Solar appealed before the Court of Appeals which reversed the ruling of the lower court upholding the validity of the order o rder and the writ.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD CAN ISSUE AN EX PARTE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER BASED ON A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled that the Board can issue an ex parte cease and desist order considering that it is permitted by law and regulations because stopping the continuous discharge of pollutive and untreated effluents into the rivers and other inland waters of the Philippines cannot be made to wait until protracted litigation over the ultimate correctness or propriety of such orders has run

its full course. The Court ruled that these laws were done in the exercise of the State’s police  power. It was the contention of Solar that the Board can only issue an ex parte cease and desist order when the discharge will pose an immediate threat to life, public, health, safety or welfare, or to animal and plant life but the Court ruled that the Board need not to prove that there is an immediate threat. The Court also ruled that the issuance of an order only requires a prima facie evidence. The Court also ruled that when an establishment contests the cease and desist order, the Board must hold a public hearing to determine whether the prima facie evidence is correct or not. If the Board renders a decision against the establishment, the remedy of the establishment is to file an appeal before the Court of Appeals.