Case Digest (G.R. No. 202897)
Facts:
Maynilad Water Services, Inc. v. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823, and 207969, August 06, 2019, Supreme Court En Banc, Hernando, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners are Maynilad Water Services, Inc., Manila Water Company, Inc., and the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS). Respondents include the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), and various regional directors of the DENR Environmental Management Bureau (EMB-NCR, EMB-Region III, EMB-Region IV-A). The petitions challenge DENR Secretary orders finding petitioners liable under the Philippine Clean Water Act (R.A. No. 9275), Sec. 8, and imposing fines under Sec. 28.
Chronology of antecedent events: In April 2009 EMB-Region III filed a complaint with the PAB charging MWSS and its concessionaires Maynilad and Manila Water with failure to provide, install, operate and maintain adequate Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTFs), resulting in pollution of river tributaries feeding Manila Bay. EMB-NCR and EMB-Region IV-A filed similar complaints. The DENR Secretary issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) and, after a technical conference before the PAB, the Secretary (acting upon the PAB’s proceedings and findings) issued Orders dated October 7, 2009 and December 2, 2009 finding petitioners in violation of Section 8 and imposing fines (initially PhP 29,400,000 jointly and PhP 200,000/day thereafter).
Administrative and appellate dispositions: The PAB conducted the technical conference and produced findings; the Secretary adopted those findings and imposed penalties. Maynilad, Manila Water, and MWSS filed motions for reconsideration before the DENR Secretary; Maynilad’s late motion was deemed waived; the DENR denied relief. Petitioners then filed separate petitions for review under Rule 43 to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals (separate, non-consolidated dispositions) dismissed Maynilad’s petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 113374) for procedural defects and declared the DENR orders final and executory; dismissed Manila Water’s petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 112023) on the merits, affirming that Sec. 8’s five-year compliance period was mandatory; and dismissed MWSS’s petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 112041) for improper remedy and lack of exhausted administrative remedies, while also ruling Sec. 8 mandatory. Petitioners elevated their cases by consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court.
On April 4, 2017 the Court required status reports from petitioners and government agenci...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Did the SENR’s Orders dated October 7 and December 2, 2009 comply with Section 28 of R.A. No. 9275 and Section 19 of Executive Order No. 192, and were petitioners denied procedural due process when the Secretary imposed fines without a PAB recommendation?
- Substantive: Did petitioners violate Section 8 of R.A. No. 9275?
- Substantive (contingent): Is Section 7’s compliance by specified government agencies a condition precedent to petitioners’ obligations under Section 8?
- Substantive (contingent): Do the MWSS Concession Agreements or the Supreme Court’s decision in MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay effectively supersede or extend the five-year compliance period in Section 8 (including whether MMDA impliedly repealed Section 8 or nullified the SENR Orders)?
-
...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)