G.R. No. 229071 - People vs. O'Cochlain

Philippine Realty and Holdings, Inc. (PhilRealty) developed The Alexandra Condominium Complex from 1987 to 1993.
On 18 April 1988, PhilRealty executed a Deed of Conveyance transferring a 9,876-square-meter parcel (including all common areas) covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 64355 to The Alexandra Condominium Corporation (TACC).
The project comprised several clusters:

Cluster A – Three five-storey buildings (A-1, A-2, and A-3)
Cluster B – Two eleven-storey buildings (B-1 and B-2)
Cluster C – Two seven-storey buildings (C-1 and C-2)
Cluster D – Two fourteen-storey buildings (D-1 and D-2)
Cluster E – Two eleven-storey buildings (E-1 and E-2)

PhilRealty obtained a Development Permit from the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission on 2 September 1987 for Cluster A.
The Building Official of Pasig City, Architect Walter R. Perez, reviewed and approved the Site Development and Location Plan, as well as the Sanitary/Plumbing Plans and Specifications.
Permits issued included:

A Building Permit (24 September 1987)
A Sanitary/Plumbing Permit (30 September 1987) – noting fixtures without detailing the system of disposal or Waste Water Treatment Plan
Certificates of Final Inspection and Occupancy for Buildings A-1 to A-3 obtained on 15 December 1988, with similar processes followed for Clusters B, C, D, and E until the project's completion by 1993.

On 31 December 1993, upon completing Buildings E-1 and E-2, PhilRealty formally turned over the project to TACC despite not furnishing as-built plans for the perimeter drainage layout, foundations, electrical, and plumbing layouts.

TACC, managing the project through Century Properties Management Corporation, was advised by the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) on 24 June 1998 that its wastewater did not meet government effluent standards as provided under Sections 68 and 69 of the 1978 National Pollution Control Commission Rules and Regulations (amended by DENR Administrative Order No. 34).
LLDA mandated that TACC should install its own Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), estimating a cost of around ₱15 million.
TACC attempted a remedial solution using a proposal from Larutan Resources Development Corporation involving treatment with biological enzymes; however, the treated wastewater still failed to comply with government standards.

On 26 March 1999, LLDA’s Environmental Division collected wastewater samples from TACC.
LLDA’s report dated 6 April 1999 identified two key determinants: Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and Oil/Grease (OG), with results exceeding the government standards (150 for COD and 5 for OG).
A Notice of Violation was issued on 6 May 1999, directing TACC to submit corrective measures and imposing a daily fine of ₱1,000 from 26 March 1999 until full compliance was achieved.
TACC entered into an agreement with World Chem Marketing to construct an STP for ₱7,550,000, completed by the second week of October 2001.
Despite remedial efforts, LLDA maintained the imposition of the penalty, as it stated on 19 July 1999 that condoning the fine would equate to tolerating continued pollution, contrary to its mandate.

TACC requested the dismissal of the case on 1 April 2002, following a favorable analysis by the LLDA’s Pollution Control Division.
On 4 September 2003, LLDA issued an Order mandating TACC to pay a fine of ₱1,062,000 covering the period from 26 March 1999 to 20 February 2002.
TACC filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, seeking a temporary restraining order against the LLDA’s imposition of the fine, arguing:

Its exhaustive efforts to comply with government standards should warrant relief from the penalty.
The petition was erroneously filed because administrative remedies had not been exhausted (e.g., failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the 4 September 2003 Order).

The Court of Appeals, in its 26 April 2005 Decision, dismissed the petition for being premature, emphasizing that proper administrative remedies—specifically, a motion for reconsideration or appeal to the DENR Secretary—should have been pursued first.
TACC’s motion for reconsideration was denied in the Court of Appeals’ 1 August 2005 Resolution, leading to the present petition for review.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding TACC’s asserted exhaustive compliance efforts with the government’s effluent discharge standards.

TACC argued that the remedial and corrective measures it undertook should be sufficient to condone or mitigate the imposition of the penalty.
TACC contended that its non-compliance was attributable to omissions by PhilRealty, not to its own negligence.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that TACC’s petition for certiorari was prematurely filed.

The issue revolves around the failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, such as filing a motion for reconsideration prior to resorting to judicial intervention.
TACC forwarded an offer to compromise the claimed penalty, raising the question as to whether this constituted an administrative remnant that precluded court intervention.