Facts:

The case involves a petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Artistica Ceramica, Inc., Ceralinda, Inc., Cyber Ceramics, Inc., and Millennium, Inc. against respondents Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner's Association, Inc. and Bukluran Purok II Residents Association. The events leading to the case began in 1997 when the respondents, residing near the petitioners' ceramic manufacturing plants in Pasig City, lodged complaints with various government agencies regarding noise, air, and water pollution attributed to the petitioners' operations. These complaints led to the issuance of Closure Orders and Cease-and-Desist Orders against the petitioners. To resolve the disputes amicably, the parties entered into two agreements: the Drainage Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on June 29, 1997, and a subsequent MOA on November 14, 1997. The Drainage MOA required the petitioners to construct an effective drainage system, while the second MOA included commitments from the petitioners t...

Facts:

Parties and Background

• Petitioners:
• Artistica Ceramica, Inc.
• Ceralinda, Inc.
• Cyber Ceramics, Inc.
• Millennium, Inc.
• Located in Pasig City and engaged in the manufacture of ceramics.
• Respondents:
• Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner’s Association, Inc.
• Bukluran Purok II Residents Association
• Representing communities affected by the petitioners’ manufacturing activities.

Alleged Environmental and Safety Violations

• In 1997, respondents lodged letter complaints with several government agencies.
• Allegations included:
• Noise pollution
• Air and water pollution
• Safety and fire hazards arising from ceramic-manufacturing activities
• Subsequently, closure orders and cease-and-desist orders were issued against petitioners.

Settlement Agreements

• Two agreements were executed to settle differences:
• June 29, 1997 Drainage Memorandum of Agreement (Drainage MOA)
• November 14, 1997 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
• Key undertakings under these agreements:
• Petitioners committed to constructing an effective drainage system in Bukluran Purok II.
• Petitioners undertook to cease manufacturing activities on or before certain deadlines (May 7, 2000 or November 7, 1999 for one corporation and May 7, 2000 for all others).
• Petitioners promised to:
• Establish an Environmental Guarantee Fund as guided by the Department of Energy and Natural Resources.

ii. Furnish a performance bond amounting to P25,000,000.00. iii. Set up an Arbitration and Monitoring Committee to oversee compliance.

Arbitration Proceedings

• On July 17, 2000, respondents filed a complaint with the Arbitration Committee alleging non-compliance by petitioners with the MOA.
• The Arbitration Committee rendered its Decision on April 2, 2002, which included:
• Various findings regarding the allowances for representatives of the Residents Associations.
• A directive for the Mariwasa Subsidiaries (petitioners) to remit specific amounts (e.g., P300,000.00) for projects like a chapel/multi-purpose hall.
• Findings that the drainage system, though constructed, did not resolve flooding in Bukluran Purok Dos.
• Enforcement of the undertaking for petitioners to cease manufacturing operations, including stipulations regarding relocation and imposition of fines (P10,000.00 per day for delay).
• Observations on non-compliance regarding the submission of required quarterly reports, establishment of the Environmental Guarantee Fund, and other undertakings.
• The Committee also awarded damages:
• P1,000,000.00 as temperate damages to the Residents Associations.
• Additional damages of P100,000.00 each for failure in implementing the drainage system and attorney’s fees.

Court of Appeals (CA) Proceedings

• Both petitioners and respondents filed separate petitions for review before the CA.
• The CA, consolidating the petitions on September 16, 2002, issued a decision on January 4, 2005:
• Affirmed petitioners’ first petition with modifications (deleting the order for payment of P300,000.00 by petitioners to respondents).
• Granted the respondents’ petition by ordering the automatic forfeiture of the performance bond in favor of respondents.
• On March 18, 2005, the CA denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.

Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court

• Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the CA Decision and Resolution.
• Key allegations by petitioners in the petition:
• Erroneous declaration that petitioners failed in their undertaking to provide an effective drainage system.
• Erroneous holding that petitioners were solely responsible for the lack of an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC).
• Erroneous awarding of temperate damages without proper basis.
• Erroneous ordering of automatic forfeiture of the performance bond despite contrary provisions in the MOA.
• Timeliness Issue:
• Petitioners received the CA’s March 18, 2005 Resolution on March 28, 2005.
• They had until April 12, 2005 (15 days) to file an appeal under Rule 45.
• Instead, they filed the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on April 18, 2005, six days late and using the improper remedy.

Issue:

Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in:

• Declaring that petitioners failed in their undertaking to construct the prescribed drainage system.
• Holding petitioners solely culpable for the absence of an Environmental Compliance Certificate.
• Awarding temperate damages without showing a sound basis in law or fact.
• Ordering the automatic forfeiture of the P25,000,000.00 performance bond in contravention to the MOA.

Whether petitioners availed themselves of the proper remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of filing a petition for review under Rule 45.

• Determining if the appeal under Rule 45 was still available as a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
• Analyzing the effect of the late filing (six days past the reglementary period) on the petitioners’ available remedies.

• Whether the alleged errors by the CA constitute mere errors of judgment subject to ordinary appeal or fall within the scope of reversible errors excusable under a petition for certiorari.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)