Francisco, Juna Aimee C.

EH405
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS, INC., petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. NARCISO T. ATIENZA as Presiding Judge,
Bulacan, RTC, and HON. VICENTE CRUZ, Acting Mayor and the
MUNICIPALITY OF STA. MARIA, BULACAN, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner herein is a domestic private corporation engaged in the
manufacture and export of charcoal briquette. They received a letter from
private respondent acting mayor Pablo N. Cruz, ordering the full cessation of
the operation of the petitioner's plant and requested Plant Manager Mr.
Armando Manese to bring with him to the office of the mayor specific permits.
It sought to secure the Region III-Pollution of Environment and Natural
Resources Anti-Pollution Permit although prior to the operation of the plant, a
Temporary Permit to Operate Air Pollution Installation was issued to it.
Petitioners also sent its representatives to the office of the mayor to secure a
mayors permit but were not entertained. Without notice, the acting mayor
ordered that the plant premises be padlocked, effectively causing the
stoppage of operation. Because of this, petitioner instituted an action

for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus with
against private respondent with the court.

preliminary

injunction

RTCs Decisions:
The RTC found that the issuance of the writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction was proper, ordering the acting mayor to immediately
revoke his closure order and allow Technology Developers to resume its
normal business operations until the case has been adjudicated on the
merits. The RTC on their decision set aside its order granted the writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction.
CAs Decision:
The appellate Court also denied Technology Developer's petition for certiorari
for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the lower court correctly ordered the dissolution of the writ of
preliminary injunction sought by petitioner?
Held:
It is well-settled rule that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is
addressed to RTC and shall not be disturbed on appeal unless shown that it
acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.
Therefore, SC enumerated the circumstances that militate against the
maintenance of the writ of preliminary injunction sought by petitioner:
1. No mayor's permit had been secured. While it is true that the matter of
determining whether there is a pollution of the environment that requires
control if not prohibition of the operation of a business is essentially
addressed to the Environmental Management Bureau of the Department
of Environment and
Natural
Resources,
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.
2. The Acting Mayor called the attention of petitioner to the pollution emitted
by the fumes of its plant whose offensive odor "not only pollute the air in the
locality but also affect the health of the residents in the area," so that
petitioner was ordered to stop its operation until further orders.
3. This action of the Acting Mayor was in response to the complaint of the
residents of Barangay Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, directed to the Provincial
Governor through channels.
4. The closure order of the Acting Mayor was issued only after an
investigation was made by Marivic Guina who in her report observed that the
fumes emitted by the plant goes directly to the surrounding houses and that
no proper air pollution device has been installed.
5. Petitioner failed to produce a building permit from the municipality of Sta.
Maria, but instead presented a building permit issued by an official of Makati
on March 6, 1987.
6. While petitioner was able to present a temporary permit to operate by the
then National Pollution Control Commission on December 15, 1987, the
permit was good only up to May 25, 1988. Petitioner had not exerted any
effort to extend or validate its permit much less to install any device to
control the pollution and prevent any hazard to the health of the residents of
the community.
Conclusion:
The petition is denied. It must be stressed that concomitant with the need to
promote investment and contribute to the growth of the economy is the
equally essential imperative of protecting the health, nay the very lives of the
people, from the deleterious effect of the pollution of the environment. All the
factors enumerated above justify the dissolution of the writ of preliminary
injunction by RTC and CA correctly upheld said decision of lower court.