Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 Technology Developers Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 94759, January 21, 1991, 193 SCRA 147

    Uploaded by

    mae ann rodolfo
    9 views2 pages
    The appellate court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition. The case involved a petitioner's charcoal manufacturing plant that was ordered to shut down by the acting mayor due to lack of proper permits and for polluting the environment. The court upheld the shutdown, finding that the mayor was within his authority to protect the community from pollution. The court also noted that the health and lives of citizens need to be protected from the negative effects of pollution, which is more important than economic growth concerns.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The appellate court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition. The case involved a petitioner's charcoal manufacturing plant that was ordered to shut down by the acting mayor due to lack of proper permits and for polluting the environment. The court upheld the shutdown, finding that the mayor was within his authority to protect the community from pollution. The court also noted that the health and lives of citizens need to be protected from the negative effects of pollution, which is more important than economic growth concerns.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    9 views2 pages

    7 Technology Developers Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 94759, January 21, 1991, 193 SCRA 147

    Uploaded by

    mae ann rodolfo
    The appellate court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition. The case involved a petitioner's charcoal manufacturing plant that was ordered to shut down by the acting mayor due to lack of proper permits and for polluting the environment. The court upheld the shutdown, finding that the mayor was within his authority to protect the community from pollution. The court also noted that the health and lives of citizens need to be protected from the negative effects of pollution, which is more important than economic growth concerns.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    94759             January 21, 1991

    TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS, INC., petitioner,


    vs.
    COURT OF APPEALS, HON. NARCISO T. ATIENZA as Presiding Judge, Bulacan, RTC, and HON. VICENTE
    CRUZ, Acting Mayor and the MUNICIPALITY OF STA. MARIA, BULACAN, respondents.

    FACTS

    The authority of the local executive to protect the community from pollution is the center of this
    controversy.

    Petitioner, a domestic private corporation engaged in the manufacture and export of charcoal briquette,
    received a letter dated February 16, 1989 from private respondent acting mayor Pablo N. Cruz, ordering
    the full cessation of the operation of the petitioner's plant located at Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, until
    further order. The letter likewise requested Plant Manager Mr. Armando Manese to bring with him to
    the office of the mayor on February 20, 1989 the following: a) Building permit; b) Mayor's permit; c)
    Region III-Pollution of Environment and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution Permit; and of other
    document.

    Petitioner, then, sought to annul the Mayor’s order in closing the petitioner’s Plant, assailing the latter’s
    power in denying the former a mayor’s permit on the basis of environment violation.

    In due course the petition was denied for lack of merit by the appellate court in a decision dated January
    26, 1990.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not the appellate court committed a grave abuse of discretion in rendering its question
    decision and resolution.

    RULING

    The petition is devoid of merit. The Court held that dissolving the injunction was the correct course of
    action and that shutting down the plant’s operations was lawful due to the lack of a permit and the
    investigation concerning the plant’s pollution.

    The well-known rule is that the matter of issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the
    sound judicial discretion of the trial court and its action shall not be disturbed on appeal unless it is
    demonstrated that it acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or otherwise, in grave abuse
    of its discretion. By the same token the court that issued such a preliminary relief may recall or dissolve
    the writ as the circumstances may warrant.

    Another argument brought forward in the decision was that the petitioner had made no effort in
    mitigating the emissions coming from its plant despite being made aware of the negative effects they
    have on the residents. Furthermore, the Court noted that the health and lives of citizens need to be
    protected from negative effects of pollution and that this is more important than the need to contribute
    to economic growth.Petitioner takes note of the plea of petitioner focusing on its huge investment in
    this dollar-earning industry. It must be stressed however, that concomitant with the need to promote
    investment and contribute to the growth of the economy is the equally essential imperative of
    protecting the health, nay the very lives of the people, from the deleterious effect of the pollution of the
    environment.

    You might also like