Case Digest (G.R. No. 202897)
Facts:
In Maynilad Water Services, Inc., Manila Water Company, Inc., and the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System v. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, decided En Banc on July 19, 2022 under G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823, and 207969, the petitioners sought reconsideration of this Court’s August 6, 2019 decision affirming Court of Appeals resolutions that imposed administrative fines for their failure to comply with Section 8 of the Philippine Clean Water Act (Republic Act No. 9275). Petitioners challenged the imposition of daily fines under Section 28 of the same law for not connecting existing sewage lines in Metro Manila and adjoining highly urbanized cities to sewerage systems within five years from the Act’s effectivity on May 7, 2009. They argued before the lower tribunals and ultimately before the Supreme Court that their concession agreements with MWSS conditioned performance on third-party actions, that deadlines had been extended by the Manila Bay mandates, thaCase Digest (G.R. No. 202897)
Facts:
- Parties and Proceedings
- Three petitions were filed with the Supreme Court: Maynilad Water Services, Inc. (G.R. No. 202897), Manila Water Company, Inc. (G.R. No. 206823), and Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (G.R. No. 207969), all challenging the imposition of fines for violation of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 9275 (Philippine Clean Water Act, “CWA”).
- In its August 6, 2019 Decision, the Court denied the petitions and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ rulings, holding petitioners jointly and severally liable with MWSS for fines under Section 28 of the CWA:
- A lump-sum fine of ₱921,464,184.00 each, covering May 7, 2009 until promulgation;
- A daily fine of ₱322,102.00 thereafter, with 10% increases every two years;
- Six percent legal interest per annum; and
- A 15-day period to pay.
- Motions for Reconsideration
- MWSS argued that its compliance under Section 8 depended on DENR/DPWH/DOH actions, that Section 8 required only initiation of connections, and that solidarity liability was unfounded.
- Maynilad contended the Court misread Section 8, that the MMDA case set a 2037 deadline, that Section 28 penalizes only positive acts causing pollution, and that the fines were excessive, confiscatory, and unconstitutional.
- Manila Water asserted it fully complied with Section 8, that Section 28 punishes only commission, that it was denied procedural due process post-order, and that the proper fine should reflect mitigating factors.
Issues:
- Can petitioners collaterally challenge the constitutionality of the CWA’s penal provisions in a motion for reconsideration?
- Does Section 28 of the CWA penalize omissions (failure to connect sewage lines) as well as positive acts?
- Did the MMDA case or the concession agreements extend the Section 8 compliance deadline to 2037?
- Did petitioners violate Section 8 by failing to complete sewer connections within five years from enactment?
- Are the fines imposed excessive or otherwise warrant reduction based on good faith efforts, corporate rehabilitation, or other mitigating circumstances?
- What is the effect of R.A. Nos. 11600 and 11601 (legislative franchises effective January 22, 2022) on petitioners’ compliance period and accrued liabilities?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)