Laguna Lake Development Authority vs CA, Serapio, Asistio

30/01/2017, 12:27 AM

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs CA, Serapio, Asistio

About:

The clash between the responsibility of the City Government

of Caloocan to dispose off the 350 tons of garbage it collects
daily and the growing concern and sensitivity to a
pollutionfree environment of the residents of Barangay
Camarin, Tala Estate, Caloocan City where these tons of
garbage are dumped everyday is the hub of this controversy
Facts:

The clash between the responsibility of the City Government

of Caloocan to dispose off the 350 tons of garbage it collects
daily and the growing concern and sensitivity to a pollution
free environment of the residents of Barangay Camarin, Tala
Estate, Caloocan City where these tons of garbage are
dumped everyday is the hub of this controversy elevated by
the protagonists to the Laguna Lake Development Authority
(LLDA) for adjudication.
On March 8, 1991, the Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of Our
Lady of Lourdes Parish, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City,
filed a lettercomplaint with the Laguna
Lake Development Authority seeking to stop the operation of the
8.6hectare open garbage dumpsite in Tala Estate, Barangay
Camarin, Caloocan City due to its harmful effects on the health of
the residents and the possibility of pollution of the water content of
the surrounding area.

On November 15, 1991, the LLDA conducted an onsite

investigation, monitoring and test sampling of the leachate
that seeps from said dumpsite to the nearby creek

Page 1 of 7

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs CA, Serapio, Asistio

30/01/2017, 12:27 AM

which is a tributary of the Marilao River. The LLDA Legal and

Technical personnel found that the City Government of Caloocan
was maintaining an open dumpsite at the Camarin area without
first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)
from the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, as required
under Presidential Decree No. 1586, and clearance from LLDA as
required under Republic Act No. 4850, as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 813 and Executive Order No. 927, series
of 1983.
On December 5, 1991, the LLDA issued a Cease and Desist
Order ordering the City
Government of Caloocan, Metropolitan Manila Authority, their
contractors, and other entities, to completely halt, stop and desist
from dumping any form or kind of garbage and other waste matter
at the Camarin dumpsite.

Pending resolution of its motion for reconsideration earlier

filed on September 17, 1992 with the LLDA, the City
Government of Caloocan filed with the Regional Trial Court
of Caloocan City an action for the declaration of nullity of the
cease and desist order with prayer for the issuance of writ of
injunction, docketed as Civil Case No. C15598. In its
complaint, the City Government of Caloocan sought to be
declared as the sole authority empowered to promote the
health and safety and enhance the right of the people in
Caloocan City to a balanced ecology within its territorial
jurisdiction.
On September 25, 1992, the Executive Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City issued a temporary
restraining order enjoining the LLDA from enforcing its cease

Page 2 of 7

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs CA, Serapio, Asistio

30/01/2017, 12:27 AM

and desist order.

The LLDA, for its part, filed on October 2, 1992 a motion to
dismiss on the ground, among others, that under Republic
Act No. 3931, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 984,
otherwise known as the Pollution Control Law, the cease
and desist order issued by it which is the subject matter of
the complaint is reviewable both upon the law and the facts
of the case by the Court of Appeals and not by the Regional
Trial Court .
On October 16, 1992, Judge Manuel Jn. Serapio, after
hearing the motion to dismiss, issued in the consolidated
cases an order denying LLDA's motion to
dismiss and granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction enjoining the LLDA, its agent and all persons acting for
and on its behalf, from enforcing or implementing its cease and
desist order which prevents plaintiff City of Caloocan from
dumping garbage at the Camarin dumpsite during the pendency
of this case and/or until further orders of the court.

On November 5, 1992, the LLDA filed a petition for certiorari,

prohibition and injunction with prayer for restraining order
with the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 107542,
seeking to nullify the aforesaid order dated October 16, 1992
issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 127 of Caloocan
City denying its motion to dismiss. However, The SC refer
the case to the Court of Appeals. In the meantime, The SC
ordered (1) Judge Manuel Jn. Serapio, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, Caloocan City to cease and
desist from exercising jurisdiction over the case for declaration of
nullity of the cease and desist order issued by the Laguna Lake
Development Authority (LLDA); and (2) City Mayor of Caloocan

Page 3 of 7

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs CA, Serapio, Asistio

30/01/2017, 12:27 AM

and/or the City Government of Caloocan to cease and desist from

dumping its garbage at the Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin,
Caloocan City.

On April 30, 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated its

decision holding that: (1) the Regional Trial Court has no
jurisdiction on appeal to try, hear and decide the action for
annulment of LLDA's cease and desist order, including the
issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction in relation thereto, since appeal therefrom is within
the exclusive and appellate jurisdiction of the Court of
Appeals under Section 9, par. (3), of Batas Pambansa Blg.
129; and (2) the Laguna Lake Development Authority has no
power and authority to issue a cease and desist order under
its enabling law, Republic Act No. 4850, as amended by P.D.
No. 813 and Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983.
The Court of Appeals thus dismissed Civil Case No. 15598
and the preliminary injunction issued in the said case was
set aside; the cease and desist order of LLDA was likewise
set aside and the temporary restraining order enjoining the
City Mayor of Caloocan and/or the City Government of
Caloocan to cease and desist from dumping its garbage at
the Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City was
lifted, subject, however, to the condition that any future
dumping of garbage in said area, shall be in conformity with
the procedure and protective works contained in the
proposal attached to the records of this case and found on
pages 152160 of the Rollo, which was thereby adopted by
reference and made an integral part of the decision, until the
corresponding restraining and/or injunctive relief is granted
by the proper Court upon LLDA's institution of the necessary

Page 4 of 7

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs CA, Serapio, Asistio

30/01/2017, 12:27 AM

legal proceedings.
Hence, the Laguna Lake Development Authority filed the
instant petition for review on certiorari, with prayer that the
temporary restraining order lifted by the Court of Appeals be
reissued until after final determination by this Court of the
issue on the proper interpretation of the powers and
authority of the LLDA under its enabling law.
Issue:

Does the LLDA have the power and authority to issue a

"cease and desist" order under Republic Act No. 4850 and
its amendatory laws, on the basis of the facts presented in
this case, enjoining the dumping of garbage in Tala Estate,
Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City.
To be sure, the LLDA was not expressly conferred the power
"to issue and ex- parte cease and desist order" in a
language, as suggested by the City Government of
Caloocan, similar to the express grant to the defunct
National Pollution Control Commission under Section 7 of
P.D. No. 984 which, admittedly was not reproduced in P.D.
No. 813 and E.O. No. 927, series of 1983. However, it would
be a mistake to draw therefrom the conclusion that there is a
denial of the power to issue the order in question when the
power "to make, alter or modify orders requiring the
discontinuance of pollution" is expressly and clearly
bestowed upon the LLDA by Executive Order No. 927,
series of 1983.
Assuming arguendo that the authority to issue a "cease and
desist order" were not expressly conferred by law, there is
jurisprudence enough to the effect that the rule granting such

Page 5 of 7

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs CA, Serapio, Asistio

30/01/2017, 12:27 AM

authority need not necessarily be express. While it is a

fundamental rule that an administrative agency has only such
powers as are expressly granted to it by law, it is likewise a
settled rule that an administrative agency has also such powers
as are necessarily implied in the exercise of its express powers.
In the exercise, therefore, of its express powers under its charter
as a regulatory and quasijudicial body with respect to pollution
cases in the Laguna Lake region, the authority of the LLDA to
issue a "cease and desist order" is, perforce, implied. Otherwise,
it may well be reduced to a "toothless" paper agency.

In this connection, it must be noted that in Pollution

Adjudication Board v. Court of Appeals, et al., the Court ruled
that the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) has the power to
issue an exparte cease and desist order when there is prima facie
evidence of an establishment exceeding the allowable standards
set by the antipollution laws of the country. The ponente,
Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano, declared:

Ex parte cease and desist orders are permitted by law and

regulations in situations like that here presented precisely
because stopping the continuous discharge of pollutive and
untreated effluents into the rivers and other inland waters of
the Philippines cannot be made to wait until protracted
litigation over the ultimate correctness or propriety of such
orders has run its full course, including multiple and
sequential appeals such as those which Solar has taken,
which of course may take several years. The relevant
pollution control statute and implementing regulations were
enacted and promulgated in the exercise of that pervasive,
sovereign power to protect the safety, health, and general
welfare and comfort of the public, as well as the protection of
plant and animal life, commonly designated as the police

Page 6 of 7

Laguna Lake Development Authority vs CA, Serapio, Asistio

30/01/2017, 12:27 AM

power. It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary

requirements of procedural due process yield to the
necessities of protecting vital public interests like those here
involved, through the exercise of police power. . . .

Page 7 of 7