Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Universal Robina VS LLDA rationale for this doctrine is obvious.

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