Case Digest (G.R. No. 93891)
Facts:
Pollution Adjudication Board v. Court of Appeals and Solar Textile Finishing Corporation, G.R. No. 93891, March 11, 1991, the Supreme Court Third Division, Feliciano, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is the Pollution Adjudication Board (the Board); respondents are the Court of Appeals (as nominal respondent in the administrative remedy review) and Solar Textile Finishing Corporation (Solar), the industrial operator ordered closed.On 22 September 1988 the Board, acting on inspection reports, issued an ex parte cease-and-desist Order directing Solar to stop discharging untreated wastewater into a drainage canal leading to the Tullahan‑Tinejeros River, citing violations of P.D. No. 984 and the 1982 Effluent Regulations. That Order was based on inspection and sampling reports from NPCC inspections of 5 and 12 November 1986 and a DENR inspection of 6 September 1988 which showed Solar’s wastewater treatment plant was non‑operational and that effluent parameters (color, BOD, suspended solids, pH, settable matter, etc.) exceeded the maximum permissible levels for inland waters (Class D). Solar received the Board’s Order on 26 September 1988 and a Writ of Execution on 31 March 1989.
Solar moved for reconsideration with a prayer for stay; the Board on 24 April 1989 granted temporary authority to operate pending another inspection and directed DENR/NCR to conduct that inspection. Solar filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 77 (Civil Case No. Q‑89‑2287) on 21 April 1989. On 21 July 1989 the RTC dismissed Solar’s petition on two grounds: certiorari was not the proper remedy (an appeal was) and the Board’s subsequent temporary authorization rendered the petition moot.
Solar appealed to the Court of Appeals which, in a Decision promulgated 7 February 1990 (and a Resolution of 10 May 1990), reversed the RTC, remanded for further proceedings, and declared the Writ of Execution null and void, while noting the Board could still pursue inspection and evaluation. The Board sought reconsideration in the Court of Appeals which was denied, and then filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals’ decisio...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the Regional Trial Court’s dismissal of Solar’s petition—i.e., was certiorari the proper remedy—or should the proper remedy have been appeal?
- Did the Board’s ex parte cease‑and‑desist Order and Writ of Execution violate Solar’s r...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)