Title
Republic vs. N. Dela Merced and Sons, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 201501
Decision Date
Jan 22, 2018
Dela Merced & Sons violated environmental laws by operating without permits and discharging pollutants. Fined P3.98M, upheld by SC, emphasizing strict enforcement of water protection laws.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 201501)

Procedural History

Dela Merced & Sons requested extensions, filed a motion for reconsideration, and met conditions for a Temporary Lifting Order. A November 2007 sampling confirmed compliance, but DENR-PAB initiated proceedings to impose fines for the entire 398-day violation period at P10,000 per day, totaling P3.98 M. DENR-PAB denied reconsideration; the Court of Appeals affirmed liability but reduced the fine to P2.63 M, citing alleged delays by DENR in post-TLO sampling. Both parties sought Supreme Court review under Rule 45.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether Dela Merced & Sons was denied due process.
  2. Whether a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) exempts compliance with the Clean Water Act.
  3. Whether Section 28 of RA 9275 is unconstitutional as imposing excessive fines.
  4. Whether the proper fine amount should be P3.98 M or a reduced figure.

Due Process Claim Rejected

The Supreme Court found that Dela Merced & Sons enjoyed full administrative due process: notices, hearings (technical conference and position paper submission), motions for reconsideration, and opportunity to present evidence. Administrative proceedings under RA 9275 require fairness but not trial-type formality. Any procedural lapses were cured by the reconsideration phase.

CNC Does Not Exempt Compliance

A CNC merely certifies non-coverage under the Environmental Impact Statement System and does not absolve a project from other environmental permits or standards. Under P.D. 1586, non-critical projects must still adopt environmental safeguards. Jurisprudence confirms CNC holders remain subject to laws like the Clean Water Act.

Constitutionality of Fine Provision

Section 28 of RA 9275 prescribes administrative fines, not criminal penalties, placing it outside the constitutional ban on excessive fines in criminal cases (Article III, Section 19). Even if the Bill of Rights applied, the fines do not shock the moral sense or otherwise qualify as flagrantly oppressive. Legislative history shows lawmakers deliberately set deterrent rates to protect water resources.

Amount of Fine and its Sufficiency

The PAB correctly computed the fine for 398 days of

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.