TECHNO DEVELOPERS v. CA

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS, INC., v. CA

G.R. No. 94759; January 21, 1991

Ponente: J. Gancayco

FACTS:

Petitioner, a domestic private corporation engaged in the manufacture and export of charcoal briquette, received a letter from 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 the Plant Manager 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.

At the requested conference, petitioner, through its representative, undertook to comply with respondent's request for the production of the required documents.

Petitioner's attention having been called to its lack of mayor's permit, it sent its representatives to the office of the mayor to secure the same but were not entertained.

On April 6, 1989, without previous and reasonable notice upon petitioner, respondent acting mayor ordered the Municipality's station commander to padlock the premises of petitioner's plant, thus effectively causing the stoppage of its operation.

Left with no recourse, petitioner instituted an action for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus with preliminary injunction against private respondent

ISSUE:

Whether the action for preliminary injunction will prosper

HELD:

No.

The Supreme Court held in this case that No mayor's permit had been secured. It must also be recognized that the mayor of a town has as much responsibility to protect its inhabitants from pollution, and by virtue of his police power, he may deny the application for a permit to operate a business or otherwise close the same unless appropriate measures are taken to control and/or avoid injury to the health of the residents of the community from the emissions in the operation of the business,

 The closure order of the Acting Mayor was issued only after an investigation was made and it was observed that the fumes emitted by the plant of petitioner goes directly to the surrounding houses and that no proper air pollution device has been installed. Petitioner also failed to produce a building permit from the municipality of Sta. Maria, but instead presented a building permit issued by an official of Makati on March 6, 1987. 

While petitioner was able to present a temporary permit to operate by the then National Pollution Control Commission on December 15, 1987, the permit was good only up to May 25, 1988. 

Petitioner had not exerted any effort to extend or validate its permit much less to install any device to control the pollution and prevent any hazard to the health of the residents of the community.