Llda- Full Text

8/10/2019 Llda- Full Text

1/28

PELBEL MANUFACTURING

CORPORATION, Substituted by

Pelagia Beltran, and VIRGINIA

MALOLOS,

Petitioners,

- versus -

HON. COURT OF APPEALS,

and THE REPUBLIC OF

THEPHILIPPINES,

Respondents.x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

ALADDIN F. TRINIDAD and AQUILINAC. BONZON,

Petitioners,

- versus -

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

(LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY),Respondent.

G.R. No. 141325

G.R. No. 141174Present:

PUNO,J., Chairperson,

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,

CORONA,

AZCUNA, and

GARCIA,JJ.

Promulgated:

July 31, 2006

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - x

D E C I S I O N

PUNO,J.:

Before us are the consolidated cases of Pelbel ManufacturingCorporation, Substituted by Pelagia Beltran, and Virginia Malolos v.

Court of Appeals and the Republic of the Philippines

and Aladdin F. Trinidad and Aquilina C. Bonzon v. Republic of

the Philippines (Laguna Lake Development Authority), appealing the

Court of Appeals November 14, 1997 Decision[1]

in CA-G.R. CV No.

23592 and December 22, 1999 Resolution,[2]which reversed the Regional

Trial Courts (RTCs) Decision[3]

dated September 12, 1988 in LandRegistration Case No. 243-A. The RTC granted the application of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn1


2/28

petitioners Pelagia Beltran, Aladdin F. Trinidad and Virginia Malolosto

have the parcels of land situated in San Juan, Taytay, Rizal,and indicated

in Psu-240345 to be registered in their names.

The facts, narrated by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:

The original applicants for registration are PelbelManufacturing Corporation, Aladdin Trinidad and Virginia

Malolos. The lots sought to be registered are two parcels ofland covered by Plan Psu-240345, the first parcel having an

area of 28,181 square meters, more or less and the second

parcel having an area of 2,070 square meters, more orless. Both parcels of land are situated [in] San Juan, Taytay,Rizal.

The case was set for initial hearing on April 1, 1985 and

after fulfillment by the applicants of the jurisdictionalrequirements of notice, posting and publication, initial hearing

took place as scheduled. There being no formal opposition onrecord, an Order of general defaultwas issued and Applicants

were allowed to present evidence ex-parte before the Acting

Clerk of Court who was commissioned to receive evidence.

Earlier on March 28, 1985 however, the Laguna Lake

Development Authority filed a Manifestation(Record, pp. 30-

31) stating that, as per projections of the subject lots in thetopographic map prepared by the Bureau of Coast and

Geodetic Survey using technical description of the lots

approved by the Bureau of Lands, subject lots are situatedbelow the elevation of 12.50 meters, thus forming part of the

bed of the Laguna Lakein accordance with Sec. 41 (paragraph11) of Republic Act No. 4850 as amended by P.D. No. 813.

On April 22, 1985, the Office of the Solicitor General

filed its Opposition (Record, p. 40) alleging that neither theapplicants nor their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,

continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation

of the land since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto; that theapplicants claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis of

Spanish Title or grant can no longer be availed of for failure to

file the appropriate application for registration within six (6)months from February 16, 1976 as required by P.D. No. 892;


3/28

and that applicant Pelbel Manufacturing Corporation isdisqualified, being a private corporation, to hold lands of the

public domain except by lease pursuant to Section 11, Article

XIV of the 1973 Constitution.

On May 3, 1985, a Motion For Substitution of Party

Applicant was filed by Pelbel to substitute Pelagia P. Beltranin its place as applicant with respect to 17,500 square meters of

the lot applied for, which Motion was granted by the lower

court (Record, p. 48).

On May 4, 1985, the lower court rendered the assailed

Decision (Record, p. 49) adjudicating the parcels of landapplied for in favor of the following: Pelagia Beltran17,500

square meters; Aladdin Trinidad 2,500 square meters;

Virginia Malolos10,251 square meters (Appellants Brief, p.3; Rollo, p. 260), based on the following findings:

The aforecited established facts support the

application for registration of the two parcels of landsubject of the present application. The applicants have

satisfactorily proven their peaceful, continuous, and

public possession of the said parcels of land for over aperiod of thirty years and no person or persons had/have

disturbed their possession thereof nor interposed anyformal opposition to the instant application. The subject

parcels of land being within the disposable portion of

the public domain, the applicants are therefore entitled

to the registration of their titles to the parcels of landsubject of this case. The Provincial Engineer of Rizal

attested to the effect that the subject property will not be

affected by any government highway as shown in the

clearance marked as Exh.[s] H and H-1 of the applicant

corporation.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court

confirms and declares the applicants as the true andabsolute owners of the parcels of land subject of this

application, situated [in] San Juan, Taytay, Rizal and let

therefore an order be as it is hereby ordered issued forthe registration of the titles to the subject land in the

following proportions in favor and in the names of:

a) 17,500 square meters unto Pelagia Beltran, 60years old, married to Geronimo Beltran,


4/28

Filipino citizen, and a resident of Gen.Segundo St., Pasig, Metro Manila;

b) 2,500 square meters unto Aladdin F.

Trinidad, 54 years old, married to PerfectaTrinidad, Filipino citizen, and residing at

Valle Verde, Pasig, Metro Manila; and

c) 10,251 square meters unto Virginia Malolos,

50 years old, married to Eliseo Malolos,Filipino [c]itizen[,] and residing [on] Macopa

St., Quezon City.

as pro-indiviso owners in fee simple of the parcels ofland indicated in Psu-1445109 (Exh. G), particularly

described in the corresponding technical description

(Exh[s]. G-1 and G-2) upon payment of the requiredfees therefor.

(Record, pp. 56-57)

A Motion to Amend Order of General Default and SetAside Decision dated May 4, 1985 (Record, pp. 64-[6]7) was

filed by Laguna Lake Development Authority on the ground

that LLDA had already established by preliminary

investigations that the lots are below elevation of 12.50 meters,hence are of public dominion. On June 26, 1985[,] the lower

court directed the Office of the Solicitor General to filecomment on the motion.

On August 29, 1985, applicant Aladdin F. Trinidad, inhis Motion to Segregate the land appliedfor by him from Plan

PSU-[240345] stated that the LLDAs position was untenable

based on Supreme Court decisions in Republic of the

Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Santos del Rio, 131SCRA 532 and Bautista vs. Court of Appeals and Santos delRio, 131 SCRA 532 which held that parts around Laguna deBay which become covered with water four to five months a

year, not due to tidal action, but due to rains cannot beconsidered a part of the bed or basin of Laguna de Bay nor as aforeshore land. LLDA filed an Opposition stating that in the

aforementioned cases the Supreme Court failed to apply Sec.41 (paragraph 11) of R.A. 4850 as amended by P.D. 813 inresolving the issue of whether or not subject lots are public

land.


5/28

Paragraph 11 of R.A. 4850 as amended states:

(11) Laguna Lake or Lake. Whenever Laguna

Lake or lake is usedin this Act, the same shall refer toLaguna de Bay which is that area covered by the lake

waterwhen it is at the average annual maximum lakelevel of elevation 12.50 meters, as referred to a datum10.00 meters below mean lower low water

(m.L.L.W.). Lands located at and belowsuch elevation

are public landswhich form part of the bed of said lake.(Underlining supplied.)

In his Rejoinder, [Aladdin] Trinidad contended that theenactment of R.A. No. 4850 in 1966 did not retroact to make

the subject lots public.

On September 17, 1985, the OSG filed its Comment

supporting the LLDAs positionthat lakes and their beds suchas the lots sought to be registered are, under Article 502, par. 4

of the [N]ew Civil Code, considered public domain. Invoking

Article XV, Section II of the 1972 Constitution, the OSG

further argued that applicant Pelbel, being a corporation, isdisqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain and that

applicants are not entitled to registration for lack of the

requisite number of years of possession beforeJune 12, 1945.

Acting upon LLDAs Motion, the lower court in anOrder dated October 3, 1985 reopened the case to enable the

government to present its evidence. On November 25, 1985[,]

Geodetic Engineer Joel G. Merida was presented asgovernment witness. Merida testified that upon LLDAs

verification and actual inspection of the subject lots conducted

in November, the highest observed vertical elevation of the

subject lots was determined to be at elevation 12.19 meters.

On October 17, 1988, the OSG filed a Motion toDismiss applicants-appellees application on the ground that

there was no valid amendment and republication of theapplication relative to the substitution by Beltran as applicantin lieu of Pelbel [C]orporation which the court denied in an

Order dated January 12, 1987, stating:

After going over the above-mentioned arguments

set forth by Oppositor Republic of the Philippines, the


6/28

Court finds that the ground [set forth] by the Oppositoris devoid of merit.

The record disclose[d] that acting on a Motion for

Substitution of Party-Applicant, dated April 29,1985 filed by Applicant Pelbel Manufacturing

Corporation, the Court in its Order dated May 3,

1985 granted the substitution of applicant, Pelbel

Manufacturing Corporation with Applicant PelagiaBeltran.

Being a private person, Applicant is not covered

by the constitutional prohibition invokedby Oppositor Republic of the Philippines which applies

only to private corporation.

On the claim of Oppositor Republic of thePhilippines, that the substitution was an attempt to

circumvent the constitutional prohibition against private

corporations, the Court can just add that the applicantPelbel Manufacturing Corporation in conveying the

property applied for by it has in its favor the disputable

presumption that private transactions have been fair andregular pursuant to the provisions of Rule 131, Section

5, sub par. (p) of the Rules of Court. Said presumptionis deemed satisfactory if uncontradicted but may becontradicted and overcome by other evidence. The

record disclose[d] that no evidence was ever presentedto contradict said disputable presumption in favor of theapplicant private corporation.

The alleged failure to

notify Oppositor Republic of the Philippines of the

substitution of applicant Pelbel Manufacturing

Corporation by Applicant Pelagia Beltran is just aprocedural defect and not a jurisdictional defect which

would affect the validity of the Amended Application.

On the second ground for the dismissal of the

Amended Application for failure to republish the same,

the Court agrees with Applicant Trinidad thatconsidering that the amendment on the application does

not affect any increase or alteration of the area of the

property applied for but pertains only to an amendment

of the joinder or discontinuance of the parties, norepublication of the Amended Application is necessary.


7/28


8/28

On December 22, 1999, the appellate court denied the motion for

reconsideration of petitioner Pelbel Manufacturing Corporation, as

substituted by Pelagia Beltran.

Hence, this appeal.

Petitioners Pelbel Manufacturing Corporation, substituted by

Pelagia Beltran, and Virginia Malolos base their appeal on the following

grounds:

I.

THE LOTS IN QUESTION ARE

ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE[5]

A. The conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the lots in

question are not alienable and disposable because of the absenceof a certification from the Government that the lots are alienable

and disposable is not supported by the evidence, and is clearly

contrary to the undisputed evidence on record.[6]

B. The conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the lots in

question are part of the Laguna Lake is not supported bysubstantial evidence and negated by applicable law and

jurisprudence.[7]

C. Elementary logic dictates that if the lots with houses

and the roads between the subject lots are alienable and

disposable, then the subject lots are alienable and disposable.[8]

D. The findings and conclusions of the trial [c]ourt are in

accord with the facts, the law and the evidence.[9]

II.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AS A MATTER OF

LAW IN REVERSING THE HOLDING OF THE TRIAL

COURT THAT THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR

PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST HAD BEEN IN

OPEN, PUBLIC AND ADVERSE POSSESSION OF

THE PROPERTY IN THE CONCEPT OF OWNERS

FOR MORE THAN 30 YEAR IS BASED ON MERE

CONJECTURES[,] SPECULATIONS AND

GENERALIZATION.[10]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn5


9/28

A. The findings of facts of the trial [c]ourt on the

credibility of witnesses are binding on the Court of Appeals.[11]

B. There are no substantial reasons of the Court of

Appeals for reversing the conclusion and finding of the trial

[c]ourt.[12]

C. The ruling of the trial [c]ourt ought to be re-instated

and upheld, as a matter of law and established jurisprudence.[13]

On the other hand, petitioners Aladdin F. Trinidad and Aquilina C.

Bonzon cite the grounds for their appeal in the following manner:

FIRST GROUND

Is the Questioned Decision And Resolution Of The

Hon. Court Of Appeals Supported By Evidence

And Which Is Contradicted By The Evidence Of

The Petitioners In The Record (Tolentino vs. DeJesus, et al., L-32797, 27 March 1974).

SECOND GROUND

Has The Hon. Court Of Appeals Disregarded The

Applicable Laws And Decisions Of The Hon.

Supreme Court in the below cases:

1. Director of Lands vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et

al.[,] G.R. No. L-43105, August 31, 1984.

2. Aurora Bautista, et al. vs. Hon. Court of

Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 43190, August 31,

1984.

in deciding this case which cases interpreted the

laws applicable to this case on the basis of the factsestablished by the evidence in the records.[14]

In sum, the two consolidated petitions raise the following issues:

(1) Whether the subject parcels of land are public land; and

(2) If they are not public land, whether applicants-petitioners

have registrable title to the land.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn11


10/28

We uphold the ruling of the Court of Appeals.

Petitioners, in this case, applied for registration of title to two

parcels of land covered by Plan Psu-240345. Both parcels of land arelocated in San Juan, Taytay, Rizal, near the shore of Laguna de Bay. The

controlling law in the instant case is Commonwealth Act No. 141, as

amended, otherwise known as the Public Land Act. It governs what were

used to be known as public agricultural lands, or what are otherwise

known as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. Under the

Public Land Act, there is a presumption that the land applied for belongs

to the state, and that the occupants and possessors can only claim an

interest in the land by virtue of their imperfect title or continuous, open,

and notorious possession thereof[15]for a period prescribed by law. This

principle is rooted in the Regalian doctrine, under which the State is the

source of any asserted right to ownership of land. The basic doctrine is

that all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private

ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[16] Any applicant for

judicial confirmation of an imperfect title has the burden of proving, by

incontrovertible evidence,[17]that the (a) land applied for is alienable and

disposable public land; and, (b) the applicant, by himself or through his

predecessors-in-interest had occupied and possessed the land, in theconcept of owner, openly, continuously, exclusively, and adversely since

June 12, 1945, or earlier.[18]

We hold that petitioners failed to show that the parcels of land

subject of their application are alienable and disposable. The

government, through the Laguna Lake Development Authority,

established that the areas sought to be registered are below the statutory

minimum elevation of 12.50 meters, hence formed part of the bedof Laguna Lake under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4850, as amended. In a

Report dated November 19, 1985, Laguna Lake Development Authority

Geodetic Engineer Joel G. Merida stated that one-half of the area of Lot 1

and the entire area of Lot 2, Psu-240345, are covered by mud and lake

water at an elevation of 11.77 meters, and the highest observed elevation

is 12.19 meters.[19]

This means that the subject lots form part of the lake

bed or basin of Laguna Lake. Sec. 41(11) of R.A. No. 4850 sets the

minimum water elevation at 12.50 meters. Lands located at and belowsuch elevation are public lands which form part of the bed of said
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn15


11/28

lake. Art. 502 of the Civil Codeenumerates the bodies of water that are

properties of public dominion, as follows:

The following are of public dominion:

(1) Rivers and their natural beds;

(2) Continuous or intermittent waters of springs and

brooks running in their natural beds and the beds themselves;

(3) Waters rising continuously or intermittently on lands

of public dominion;

(4) Lakesand lagoons formed by Nature on public

lands, andtheirbeds;

x x x

(Emphases supplied.)

Petitioners invoke the case of Bautista v. Court of

Appeals,[20]claiming that the inundation was merely due to the rains, and

that the water elevation should be determined from the highest ordinary

depth during dry season. They cite Art. 74 of the Law of Waters of 1866

which defines the extent of a lake bed as the ground covered by their

waters when at their highest ordinary depth, and the case

of Government of the Philippine Islands v. Colegio de San

Jose[21]

which defines the phrase highest ordinary depth as the highest

depth of the waters (the Laguna Lake, in this case) during the dry season,

such depth being the regular, common, natural depth which occurs

always or most of the time during the year. It is contended that the

measurement of Laguna Lake Development Authority Geodetic Engineer

Merida of 12.19 meters as the highest observed elevation of the subjectlots was made in November,

[22]which is still rainy season. We disagree

for while November is not part of the summer season, it is not part of the

rainy season either. It still is part of the dry season during which the

waters are at their highest ordinary depth.

Further, we agree with the ruling of the appellate court that the fact

that a few of the other estates in the vicinity had succeeded in being

registered, and that there are already existing houses and roads between
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn20


12/28

Laguna Lake and the subject lots, does not prove that the subject lots are

not part of the Laguna Lake bed. Mr. Ananias Mariano registered 6,993

square meters of land in his name under Original Certificate of Title

(OCT) No. 8906 which land appears to be even located farther from the

lake than the subject lots, while Juvencio Ortaez registered 84,238

square meters of land in his name under OCT No. 55351 which land is

situated near the margins of the Laguna Lake. The land titles of these

two individuals only prove that they are the owners in fee simple of the

respective real properties described therein, free from all liens and

encumbrances except such as may be expressly noted thereon or

otherwise reserved by law.[23]

They do not prove petitioners title to the

subject lots. Further, in Ledesma v. Municipality of Iloilo,[24]

this Court

held that simple possession of a certificate of title, under the TorrensSystem, does not make the possessor the true owner of all the property

described therein. If a person obtains a title, under the Torrens System,

which includes by mistake or oversight land which cannot be registered

under the Torrens System, he does not, by virtue of said certificate alone,

become the owner of the lands illegally included. It is basic principle

that prescription does not run against the government. In Reyes v. Court

of Appeals,[25]we held:

When the government is the real party in interest, and is

proceeding mainly to assert its own rights and recover its own

property, there can be no defense on the ground of laches or

limitation. . .

Public land fraudulently included in patents or certificates

of title may be recovered or reverted to the State in accordance

with Section 101 of the Public Land Act. Prescription does not

lie against the State in such cases for the Statute of Limitations

does not run against the State. The right of reversion or

reconveyance to the State is not barred by prescription.

We further uphold the Court of Appeals in ruling that petitioners-

applicants presented no substantial evidence that they and their

predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and

notorious possession and occupation of the entire area in question, in the

concept of owner since June 12, 1945, or prior thereto.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn23


13/28

Petitioners presented Pedro Bernardo, their common predecessor-

in-interest, as witness. Bernardo testified, as follows:

Q Before this land was sold to Potenciana Espiritu, how long

have you owned this land before you sold this to PotencianaEspiritu?

A I have been the owner of this property for 25 years.

Q Before the same was sold to Potenciana Espiritu what did

you do with the land when you were still the owner of the

land?

A The land is devoted to planting of palay.

Q Do you have a tenant who till[s] the land for you?

A The tenant died.

Q Did he die before you sold the property or after?

A After I sold the property to Potenciana Espiritu, the tenantsdied, however, he was able to work as tenant for Potenciana

for a period of about 4 or 5 years.

Q When you were in possession of this property for about a

period of 25 years do you know of any other person who

have claimed right or interest?

A None that I know.

Q Can you tell us if you were in possession of the property

continuously, publicly, adversely to the whole world?

A Yes, sir, peaceful because there is no adverse claimant. It is

continuous and public and adverse to the whole world.[26]

The above-quoted testimony of Pedro Bernardo is clearly

insufficient. No other proof was presented to establish Bernardos

possession and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn26


14/28

occupation of the more than three (3) hectares of land sought to be

registered. Possession is open when it is visible and apparent to a

common observer.[27]Continuous possession consists of uninterrupted

acts of nonpermissive possession of property by the current occupants

and their predecessors.[28] To be notorious, possession must be so

conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public[29]

or at

least by the people in the vicinity of the premises.[30] Mere possession of

land[31]

and the making of vague assertions to the public that a possessor

is claiming the land[32]

are not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of

open and notorious possession. Bernardo failed to show that his alleged

possession and occupation were of the nature and duration required by

law. Bare and general allegations, without more, do not amount to

preponderant evidence that would shift the burden to the oppositor, in thiscase, the Republic.[33] Further, it militates against the claim of actual

possession under a claim of ownership since June 1945, that the subject

properties were declared for taxation purposes only in 1980, or five (5)

years before the filing of the application.[34]

IN VIEWWHEREOF, the Petitions of Pelbel Manufacturing

Corporation, substituted by Pelagia Beltran, and Virginia Malolos, and

Aladdin F. Trinidad and Aquilina C. Bonzon are DENIED. The Court ofAppealsNovember 14, 1997 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 23592

and December 22, 1999 Resolution areAFFIRMED.

Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20141325.htm#_ftn27


15/28

PACIFIC STEAM LAUNDRY,

INC.,

Petitioner,

- versus -

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY,

Respondent.

G.R. No. 165299

Present:

CARPIO,J., Chairperson,LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,*

BRION,

DEL CASTILLO, and

ABAD, JJ.

Promulgated:

December 18, 2009

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- x

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a petition for review[1]of the Decision[2]dated 30 June 2004

and the Resolution dated 8 September 2004 of the Court of Appeals in

CA-G.R. SP No. 75238.

The Facts

Petitioner Pacific Steam Laundry, Inc. (petitioner) is a company

engaged in the business ofLAUNDRY SERVICES . On 6 June 2001,

the Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) endorsed to respondent

Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) the inspection report on

the complaint ofblack smoke emission from petitioners plantlocated at

114 Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City.[3] On 22 June 2001, LLDA

conducted an investigation and found that untreated wastewater generated

from petitioners laundry washing activities was discharged directly tothe San Francisco Del Monte River. Furthermore, the Investigation
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn1


16/28

Report[4]stated that petitioners plant was operating without LLDA

clearance, AC/PO-ESI, and Discharge Permit from LLDA. On 5

September 2001, the EnvironmentalQUALITY MANAGEMENT

Division of LLDA conducted wastewater sampling of petitioners

effluent.[5]

The result of the laboratory analysis showed non-compliancewith effluent standards particularly Total Suspended Solids (TSS),

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Oil/Grease Concentration and

Color Units.[6]Consequently, LLDA issued to petitioner a Notice of

Violation[7]dated 30 October 2001 which states:

THE GENERAL MANAGERPACIFIC STEAM LAUNDRY, INC.

114 Roosevelt Avenue, Brgy. Paraiso

Quezon City

Subject: Notice of ViolationPH-01-10-303

Gentlemen:

This refers to the findings of the inspection and result of laboratory

analysis of the wastewater collected from your firm last 5 September 2001.Evaluation of the results of laboratory analysis showed that your plants

effluent failed to conform with the 1990 Revised Effluent Standard forInland Water Class C specifically in terms of TSS, BOD, Oil/Grease andColor. (Please see attached laboratory analysis)

In view thereof, you are hereby directed to submit correctivemeasures to abate/control the water pollution caused by your firm, within

fifteen (15) days from receipt of this letter.

Furthermore,pursuant to Section 9 of Presidential Decree No. 984,

PACIFIC STEAM LAUNDRY, INC. is hereby ordered to pay a penalty of

One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) per day of discharging pollutivewastewater to be computed from 5 September 2001, the date of inspection

until full cessation of discharging pollutive wastewater and a fine of Five

Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) per year for operating without the necessary

clearance/permits from the Authority.

Very truly yours,

(signed)

CALIXTO R. CATAQUIZGeneral Manager
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn5


17/28

Petitioner submitted its application for LLDA Clearance and

Discharge Permit and informed LLDA that it would undertake thenecessary measures to abate the water pollution.[8]On 1 March 2002, a

compliance monitoring was conducted and the result of the laboratory

analysis[9]still showed non-compliancewith effluent standards in terms of

TSS, BOD, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), and Oil/Grease

Concentration. It was reported that petitionersWASTEWATER

TREATMENT facility was under construction. Subsequently, another

wastewater sampling was conducted on 25 April 2002 but the

results

[10]

still failed to conform with the effluent standards in terms ofOil/Grease Concentration.

Meanwhile, on 15 April 2002, a Pollution Control and Abatementcase was filed against petitioner before the LLDA. During the public

hearing on 30 April 2002, LLDA informed petitioner of its continuous

non-compliance with the effluent standards. Petitioner requested for

another wastewater sampling which was conducted on 5 June 2002. The

laboratory results[11]of the wastewater sampling finally showed

compliance with the effluent standard in all parameters. On 9 August

2002, another public hearing was held to discuss the dismissal of the

water pollution case and the payment of the accumulated daily penalty.

According to LLDA, the penalty should be reckoned from 5 September

2001, the date of initial sampling, to 17 May 2002, the date LLDA

received the request for re-sampling. Petitioner manifested that its

wastewater discharge was not on a daily basis. In its position

paper[12]dated 25 August 2002, petitioner prayed that the Notice of

Violation dated 30 October 2001 be set aside and the penalty and fine

imposed be reckoned from the date of actual hearing on 15 April 2002.

On 16 September 2002, LLDA issued an Order to Pay,[13]thepertinent portion of which reads:

Respondent prayed that the Notice of Violation issued

on 30 October 2001 and its corresponding daily penalty be set

aside and that the imposable penalty be reckoned from the dateof actual hearing and not on 5 September 2001. It is

respondents position that the Notice of Violation and the

imposition of the penalty had no legal and factual basis

because it had already installed the necessaryWASTEWATERTREATMENT to abate the water pollution.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn9


18/28

This Public Hearing Committee finds respondents arguments

devoid of merit. Presidential Decree No. 984 prohibits the discharge of

pollutive wastewater and any person found in violation thereof shall pay a

fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (PhP5,000.00) [sic] for every dayduring which such violation continues. The mere discharge of wastewater

not conforming with the effluent standard is the violation referred to in PD

No. 984. Sample of respondents effluent was collected on 5 September2001 and the results of laboratory analysis confirmed the quality thereof.

Thus, a notice of violation was issued against the respondent after it was

established that its discharge was pollutive. The fact that the subsequent re-sampling reported compliance with the effluent standard does not negate the

5 September 2001 initial sampling.Respondent passed the standard because

it already implemented remedial measures to abate the water pollution. It is

therefore but just and proper that the penalty should be imposed from thedate of initial sampling, 5 September 2001, to 17 May 2002, the date the

request for re-sampling was received by the Authority. The 5 June 2002sampling confirmed that respondents effluent already complied with the

standard showing that its water pollution has ceased. Respondent did notsubmit any proof of its actual operation hence, the penalty shall becomputed for five (5) working days per week, excluding Saturdays and

Sundays as well as legal holidays from 5 September 2001 to 17 May 2002,for a total of one hundred seventy-two (172) days.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Pacific steamLaundry, Inc. is hereby ordered to pay the accumulated daily penaltyamounting to ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND

(PhP172,000.00) PESOS within fifteen(15) days from receipt hereof as acondition sine qua non for the dismissal of the above-captioned case.

SO ORDERED.[14]

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the LLDA

denied in its Order[15]dated 27 November 2002.

Petitioner then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review

under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals denied the

petition, as well as the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner.

Hence, this petition.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn15


19/28

The Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals held that LLDA has the power to impose

fines,thus:

Concededly, the power to impose administrative fines

in pollution abatement cases was expressly granted under

Section 9 of P.D. 984 to the now defunct National PollutionControl Commission(NPCC), thus:

Section 9. Penalties. - (a) Any person

found violating or failing to comply with any

order, decision or regulation of the Commission

for the control or abatement of pollution shall paya fine not exceeding five thousand pesos per dayfor every day during which such violation or

default continues; and theCommission is hereby

authorized and empowered to impose the

fine after due notice and hearing.

Nonetheless, it may be well to recall that the LLDA

was created under R.A. 4850 with the end view of promoting

and accelerating the development and balanced growth of the

Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces, and carryingout the development of the Laguna Lake Region with dueregard and adequate provisions for environmental managementand control, preservation of the quality of human life and

ecological systems, and the preservation of undue ecological

disturbances, deterioration and pollution. To correctdeficiencies and clarify ambiguities that impede the

accomplishment of the Authorities goal, Former President

Ferdinand E. Marcos promulgated P.D. 813.Finally, to enable

the LLDA to effectively perform its role, Former PresidentMarcos further issued E.O. 927, which granted the LLDA

additional powers and functions,viz:

Section 4. Additional Powers andFunctions. - The authority shall have the

following powers and functions:

x x x

(d) Make, alter or modify ordersrequiring the discontinuance of


20/28

pollution specifying theconditions and time within which

such continuance must be

accomplished.

x x x

(i) Exercise such powers and perform suchother functions as may be necessary to

carry out its duties and responsibilities

under this Executive order.

Indeed, the express grant of power to impose

administrative fines as couched in the language of P.D. 984

was not reproduced in E.O. 927, however, it can be logicallyimplied from LLDAs authority to exercise the power to

make, alter or modify orders requiring the discontinuance

of pollution. In addition, the clear intendment of E.O. 927

to clothe LLDA not only with the express powers granted to

it, but also those implied, incidental and necessary for the

exercise of its express powerscan be easily discerned from

the grant of the general power to exercise (such) powers

and perform such other functions as may be necessary to

carry out its duties and responsibilities.

This finds support in the wealth of authorities in

American Jurisprudence, citing adherence of other courts to

the principle that the authority given to an agency should be

liberally construed in order to permit the agency to carry out

its statutory responsibilities. This is especially true where

the agency is concerned with protecting the public health

and welfare, the delegation of authority to the agency is

liberally construed.

The LLDA, as an agency implementing pollution laws,

rules and regulations, should be given some measures of

flexibility in its operations in order not to hamper it unduly

in the fulfillment of its objectives.How could it effectively

perform its role if in every act of violation, it must resort to

other venue for the appropriate remedy, because it

isIMPOTENT by itself to punish or deal withit?[16](Emphasis in the original)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm


21/28

The Issues

Petitioner raises two issues:

1. Does the respondent LLDA have the implied power to

impose fines as set forth in PD 984?

2. Does the grant of implied power to LLDA to imposepenalties violate the rule on non-delegation of

legislative powers?[17]

The Ruling of the Court

We find the petition without merit.

Power of LLDA to Impose Fines

Petitioner asserts that LLDA has no power to impose fines since

such power to impose penal sanctions, which was once lodged with the

National Pollution Control Commission (NPCC), is now assumed by the

Pollution Adjudication Board pursuant to Executive Order No. 192(EO

192).[18]

We disagree with petitioner.

Presidential Decree No. 984 (PD 984)[19] created and established

the NPCC under the Office of the President. EO 192, which reorganized

the DENR, created the Pollution Adjudication Board under the Office of

the DENR Secretary which assumed the powers and functions of the

NPCC with respect to adjudication of pollution cases.

Section 19 of EO 192 provides:

SEC. 19.Pollution Adjudication Board. There is

hereby created a Pollution Adjudication Board under the

Office of the Secretary. The Board shall be composed of

the Secretary as Chairman, two (2) Undersecretaries as may

be designated by the Secretary, the Director of

Environmental Management, and three (3) others to be

designated by the Secretary as members. The Board shallassume the powers and functions of the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn18


22/28

Commission/Commissioners of the National Pollution

Control Commission with respect to the adjudication of

pollution cases under Republic Act 3931 and Presidential

Decree 984, particularly with respect to Section 6 letters

e, f, g, j, k, and p of P.D. 984 . The EnvironmentalManagement Bureau shall serve as the Secretariat of the

Board. These powers and functions may be delegated to the

regional officers of the Department in accordance with rules

and regulations to be promulgated by the Board. (Emphasis

supplied)

Section 6, paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (j), (k), and (p) of PD 984

referred to above states:

SEC. 6.Powers and Functions. The Commission

shall have the following powers and functions:x x x

(e) Issue orders or decisions to compel compliance with the

provisions of this Decree and its implementing rules and regulations onlyafter proper notice and hearing.

(f) Make, alter or modify orders requiring the discontinuance of

pollution specifying the conditions and the time within which such

discontinuance must be accomplished.(g) Issue, renew, or deny permits, under such

conditions as it may determine to be reasonable, for theprevention and abatement of pollution, for the discharge of

sewage,INDUSTRIAL WASTE , or for the installation oroperation of sewage works and industrial disposal system or

parts thereof:Provided, however, the Commission, by rules

and regulations, may require subdivisions, condominium,hospitals, public buildings and other similar human settlements

to put up appropriate central sewerage system andSEWAGETREATMENT works, except that no permits shall be

required of any new sewage works or changes to or extensions

of existing works that discharge only domestic or sanitary

wastes from a single residential building provided with septictanks or their equivalent. The Commission may impose

reasonable fees and charges for the issuance or renewal of all

permits herein required.x x x

(j) Serve as arbitrator for the determination of reparations, or

restitution of the damages and losses resulting from pollution.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm


23/28

(k) Deputize in writing or request assistance of appropriategovernment agencies or instrumentalities for the purpose of enforcing this

Decree and its implementing rules and regulations and the orders and

decisions of the Commission.

x x x(p) Exercise such powers and perform such other functions as may

be necessary to carry out its duties and responsibilities under this Decree.

On the other hand, LLDA is a special agency created under

Republic Act No. 4850 (RA 4850)[20] to manage and develop the Laguna

Lake region, comprising of the provinces of Rizal and Laguna and the

cities of San Pablo, Manila, Pasay, Quezon and Caloocan. RA 4850, as

amended by Presidential Decree No. 813 (PD 813),[21]mandates LLDA tocarry out the development of the Laguna Lake region, with due regard

and adequate provisions for environmental management and control,

preservation of the quality of human life and ecological systems, and the

prevention of undue ecological disturbances, deterioration and

pollution.[22]

Under Executive Order No. 927 (EO 927),[23]LLDA is granted

additional powers and functions to effectively perform its role and to

enlarge its prerogatives of monitoring, licensing and enforcement, thus:

SECTION 4.Additional Powers and Functions. The

Authority [LLDA] shall have the following powers and

functions:a) Issue standards, rules and regulations to govern the

approval of plans and specifications for sewage works and

industrialWASTE DISPOSAL systems and the issuance of

permits in accordance with the provisions of this Executive

Order; inspect the construction and maintenance of sewageworks andINDUSTRIAL WASTE disposal systems for

compliance to plans.b) Adopt, prescribe, and promulgate rules and regulations governing

the Procedures of the Authority with respect to hearings, plans,

specifications, designs, and other data for sewage works andINDUSTRIALWASTE disposal system, the filing of reports, the issuance of permits, and

other rules and regulations for the proper implementation and enforcement

of this Executive Order.

c) Issue orders or decisions to compel compliancewith the provisions of this Executive Order and its
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn21


24/28

implementing rules and regulations only after proper

notice and hearing.

d) Make, alter or modify orders requiring the discontinuance

of pollution specifying the conditionsand the time within which such

discontinuance must be accomplished.e) Issue, renew or deny permits, under such conditions as it may

determine to be reasonable, for the prevention and abatement of

pollution, for the discharge of sewage, industrial waste, or for the

installation or operation of sewage works and industrial disposal system

or parts thereof:Provided, however,that the Authority, by rules and

regulations, may require subdivisions, condominiums, hospitals, public

buildings and other similar human settlements to put up appropriate

central sewerage system andSEWAGE TREATMENT works, except

that no permits shall be required of any new sewage works or changes toor extensions of existing works that discharge only domestic or sanitary

wastes from a single residential building provided with septic tanks or

their equivalent. The Authority may impose reasonable fees and charges

for the issuance or renewal of all permits herein required.f) After due notice and hearing, the Authority may

also revoke, suspend or modify any permit issued under this

Order whenever the same is necessary to prevent or abate

pollution.g) Deputize in writing or request assistance of appropriate

government agencies or instrumentalities for the purpose of enforcing thisexecutive Order and its implementing rules and regulations and the ordersand decision of the Authority.

(h) Authorize its representative to enter at all reasonable times any

property of the public dominion and private property devoted to industrial,manufacturing processing or commercial use without doing damage, for the

purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to pollution or

possible or imminent pollution.

(i) Exercise such powers and perform such other

functions as may be necessary to carry out its duties andresponsibilities under this Executive Order. (Emphasis

supplied)

A comparison of the powers and functions of the Pollution

Adjudication Board and the LLDA reveals substantial similarity. Both

the Pollution Adjudication Board and the LLDA are empowered, among

others, to: (1) make, alter or modify orders requiring the discontinuance

of pollution; (2) issue, renew, or deny permits for the prevention andabatement of pollution, for the discharge of sewage, industrial waste, or
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm


25/28

for the installation or operation of sewage works and industrial disposal

system; and (3) exercise such powers and perform such other functions

necessary to carry out their duties and responsibilities. The difference is

that while Section 19 of EO 192 vested the Pollution Adjudication Board

with the specific power to adjudicate pollution cases ingeneral,[24]the scope of authority of LLDA to adjudicate pollution cases

is limited to the Laguna Lake region as defined by RA 4850, as amended.

Thus, inLaguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of

Appeals,[25]the Court held that the adjudication of pollution casesgenerally pertains to the Pollution Adjudication Board, except where a

special law, such as the LLDA Charter, provides for another forum.Indeed, even PD 984 authorizes the LLDA to undertake pollution control

activities within LLDAs development area. Section 10 of PD 984

provides:

SEC. 10. Jurisdiction. The Commission [NPCC]

shall have no jurisdiction over waterworks or sewage system

operated by the Metropolitan Waterworks Sewerage System,but the rules and regulations issued by the Commission for the

protection and prevention of pollution under the authority

herein granted shall supersede and prevail over any rules or

regulations as may heretofore have been issued by othergovernment agencies or instrumentalities on the same subject.

In case of development projects involvingspecific

human settlement sites or integrated regional or

subregional projects, such as the Tondo Foreshore

Development Authority and the Laguna Lake Development

Authority, the Commission shall consult with the

authorities charged with the planning and execution of

such projects to ensure that their pollution controlstandards comply with those of the Commission. Once

minimum pollution standards are established and agreed

upon, the development authorities concerned may, by

mutual agreement and prior consultation with the

Commission, undertake the pollution control activities

themselves. (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)

In this case, the DENRs Environmental Management Bureau

endorsed to LLDA the pollution complaint against petitioner. UnderSection 16 of EO 192, the Environmental Management Bureau assumed
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn25


26/28

the powers and functions of the NPCC except with respect to

adjudication of pollution cases,thus:

SEC. 16.Environmental Management Bureau.There

is hereby created an Environmental Management Bureau.The National Environmental Protection Council

(NEPC), the National Pollution Control Commission

(NPCC)and the Environmental Center of the Philippines

(ECP), are herebyabolished and their powers and

functions are hereby integrated into the Environmental

Management Bureauin accordance with Section 24(c)

hereof, subject to Section 19 hereof. x x x (Emphasissupplied)

The Environmental Management Bureau also serves as the

Secretariat of the Pollution Adjudication Board, and its Director is one of

the members of the Pollution Adjudication Board. Clearly, by endorsing

to LLDA the pollution complaint against petitioner, the Environmental

Management Bureau deferred to LLDAs jurisdiction over the pollution

complaint against petitioner.

Although the Pollution Adjudication Board assumed the powersand functions of the NPCC with respect to adjudication of pollution

cases, this does not preclude LLDA from assuming jurisdiction of

pollution cases within its area of responsibility and to impose fines as

penalty.

Thus, in the recent case of The Alexandra Condominium

Corporation v. Laguna Lake Development Authority,[26]the Court

affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals which sustained LLDAs

Order, requiring petitioner therein to pay a fine of P1,062,000representing penalty for pollutive wastewater discharge. Although

petitioner in that case did not challenge LLDAs authority to impose fine,

the Court acknowledged the power of LLDA to impose fines, holding

that under Section 4-A of RA 4850, as amended, LLDA is entitled to

compensation for damages resulting from failure to meet established

water and effluent standards. Section 4-A of RA 4850, as amended,

reads:

SEC. 4-A. Compensation for damages to the water andaquatic resources of Laguna de Bay and its tributaries
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn27


27/28

resulting from failure to meet established water and effluent

quality standards or from such other wrongful act or

omission of a person, private or public, juridical or

otherwise, punishable under the law shall be awarded to the

Authority to be earmarked for water quality control andmanagement.

Under Section 4(h) of EO 927, LLDA may exercise such powers

and perform such other functions as may be necessary to carry out its

duties and responsibilities. InLaguna Lake Development Authority v.

Court of Appeals,[27]the Court upheld the power of LLDA to issue an ex-

partecease and desist order even if such power is not expressly conferred

by law, holding that an administrative agency has also such powers as are

necessarily implied in the exercise of its express powers.The Court ruled

that LLDA, in the exercise of its express powers under its charter, as a

regulatory and quasi-judicial body with respect to pollution cases in the

Laguna Lake region, has the implied authority to issue a cease and desist

order. In the same manner, we hold that the LLDA has the power to

impose fines in the exercise of its function as a regulatory and quasi-

judicial body with respect to pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region.

No Undue Delegation of Legislative Power

Petitioner contends that if LLDA is deemed to have implied power

to impose penalties, then LLDA will have unfettered discretion to

determine for itself the penalties it may impose, which will amount to

undue delegation of legislative power.

We do not agree. Contrary to petitioners contention, LLDAspower to impose fines is not unrestricted. In this case, LLDA investigated

the pollution complaint against petitioner and conducted wastewater

sampling of petitioners effluent. It was only after the investigationresult showing petitioners failure to meet the established water and

effluent quality standards that LLDA imposed a fine against petitioner.

LLDA then imposed upon petitioner a penalty of P1,000 per day of

discharging pollutive wastewater. The P1,000 penalty per day is in

accordance with the amount of penalty prescribed under PD 984:

SEC. 8. Prohibitions.No person shall throw, run,

drain, or otherwise dispose into any of the water, air

and/or land resources of the Philippines, or cause,permit, suffer to be thrown, run, drain, allow to seep or
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/165299.htm#_ftn28


28/28

otherwise dispose thereto any organic or inorganic

matter or any substance in gaseous or liquid form that

shall cause pollution thereof.x x x

SEC 9. Penalties.x x x(b) Any person who shall violate any of the previous provisions

of Section Eight of this Decreeor its implementing rules and

regulations, or any Order or Decision of the Commission, shall be liable

to a penalty of not to exceed one thousand pesos each day during

which the violation continues, or by imprisonment of from two years tosix years, or by both fine and imprisonment, and in addition such person

may be required or enjoined from continuing such violation as hereinafterprovided.

x x x (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, there are adequate statutory limitations on LLDAs

power to impose fines which obviates unbridled discretion in the

exercise of such power.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the

Decision dated 30 June 2004 and the Resolution dated 8 September 2004of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 75238.

SO ORDERED.

Documents

Llda- Full Text