Title
Universal Robina Corp. vs. Laguna Lake Development Authority
Case
G.R. No. 191427
Decision Date
May 30, 2011
URC violated environmental standards, discharging pollutive effluents into Pasig River. LLDA imposed penalties; URC contested, claiming reduced liability. SC upheld penalties, citing URC's failure to exhaust administrative remedies and prioritize environmental compliance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191427)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner: Universal Robina Corp. (Corn Division)
Respondent: Laguna Lake Development Authority

Key Dates

• March 14, 2000: Initial LLDA sampling reveals effluent violations.
• May 30, 2000: Ex parte order issued requiring explanation or cessation of operations.
• August 31, 2000 & May 3, 2002: Subsequent samplings confirm continued non-compliance.
• March 1, 2001: Pollution hearings commence.
• Early 2003–2007: URC upgrades its wastewater treatment facility (WTF).
• May 9, 2007: Re-sampling shows compliance.
• January 21, 2008: LLDA issues Order to Pay penalizing 1,247 days of violation.
• July 11, 2008: LLDA denies reconsideration, revising total days to 1,274.
• October 27, 2009: Court of Appeals affirms LLDA orders.
• February 23, 2010: CA denies URC’s motion for reconsideration.
• May 30, 2011: Supreme Court renders decision under the 1987 Constitution.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (environmental protection mandate)
• DENR Administrative Orders Nos. 34 and 35, s. 1990 (effluent standards)
• EO 192 (reorganization of DENR; creation of Pollution Adjudication Board)
• LLDA Resolution No. 33, s. 1996, Art. VI, Sec. 32 (daily penalty up to ₱1,000 per violation day)
• 2004 Revised Rules Implementing RA 4850, Rule X, Sec. 2 (verified evidence requirement for penalty computation)

Factual Background

LLDA’s laboratory analyses in 2000 and 2002 showed that URC’s corn oil refinery effluent exceeded permitted levels of total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, color, and oil/grease. LLDA issued orders for explanation and hearings commenced. Despite monitoring and inspections, URC remained non-compliant until it completed its WTF upgrade in 2007.

Administrative Proceedings

Following URC’s 2007 request, LLDA re-sampled and found compliance. URC then filed a motion to reduce penalties, attaching daily operation reports claiming only 560 days of violation. LLDA’s Order to Pay (January 21, 2008) assessed 1,247 days of violations and imposed ₱1,247,000 in daily penalties. In denying reconsideration (July 11, 2008), LLDA explained it computed 932 days (March 14, 2000–November 3, 2003) and 342 days (March 15, 2006–April 17, 2007), having deducted laboratory rehabilitation and periods without monitoring. LLDA deemed URC’s reports self-serving and unverified, thus disregarding them.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed both LLDA orders. It held that LLDA’s penalty computation adhered to DENR guidelines and that LLDA properly rejected unverified documentation. The court also ruled URC’s certiorari petition premature for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies—specifically, appeal to the DENR Secretary or President.

Supreme Court Analysis

  1. 1987 Constitution: Encompasses state policy to protect the environment and grants agencies rule-making and adjudicatory authority in specialized fields such as pollution control.
  2. Exhaustion of Remedies: URC failed to appeal LLDA’s orders to the DENR Secretary per EO 192 and applicable regulations. Judicial

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.