Technology Developers, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

A local mayor may, under police power, deny a business permit or close a business that emits pollution unless appropriate measures are taken to control or avoid injury to the health of residents, even though the NPCC/EMB is tasked with determining pollution control; and a trial court may dissolve a preliminary injunction as circumstances warrant, and its action is not disturbed absent grave abuse of discretion.

Technology Developers, Inc. is a domestic private corporation engaged in the manufacture and export of charcoal briquette, with a plant in Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The Municipality of Sta. Maria, through its acting mayor, and the Environmental Management Bureau, formerly the National Pollution Control Commission, both had roles relating to pollution control and business permits. The case tests the local executive’s authority to protect the community from pollution against a business’s claim of investment in a dollar-earning industry.

Technology Developers, Inc., a domestic private corporation engaged in the manufacture and export of charcoal briquette, operated a plant at Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan. On February 16, 1989, private respondent acting mayor Pablo N. Cruz sent petitioner a letter ordering the full cessation of the plant’s operation until further order, citing pollution from fumes whose offensive odor “not only pollute the air in the locality but also affect the health of the residents in the area.” The letter also requested Plant Manager Armando Manese to bring to the mayor’s office on February 20, 1989 (a) building permit, (b) mayor’s permit, (c) Region III-Pollution of Environment and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution Permit, and other documents.

At the February 20, 1989 conference, petitioner, through its representative, undertook to comply with the request for documents. Petitioner commenced securing the Region III-DENR anti-pollution permit, although before operating its plant it had secured a Temporary Permit to Operate Air Pollution Installation from the then National Pollution Control Commission, now the Environmental Management Bureau, and the EMB was trying to determine the correct anti-pollution device to be installed as part of petitioner’s request for renewal of its permit. Petitioner’s attention having been called to its lack of mayor’s permit, it sent representatives to the mayor’s office to secure one, but they were not entertained.

On April 6, 1989, without previous and reasonable notice, the acting mayor ordered the municipality’s station commander to padlock the premises of petitioner’s plant, effectively causing the stoppage of its operation. Left with no recourse, petitioner instituted an action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with preliminary injunction against private respondent in the RTC presided by respondent judge, alleging that the closure order was issued in grave abuse of discretion.

The acting mayor’s action was in response to complaints of residents of Barangay Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, directed to the Provincial Governor through channels. Marivic Guina’s investigation report dated December 8, 1988 observed that the fumes emitted by petitioner’s plant went directly to the surrounding houses and that no proper air pollution device had been installed; her conclusion and recommendation stated that because of the manufacturing process and nature of raw materials used, the fumes may contain particulate matters hazardous to health, so the company should cease operating until a proper air pollution device is installed and operational. Three sheets of coupon bond contained signatures of residents of Barangay Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan; a letter dated November 22, 1988 addressed to Governor Roberto Pagdanganan complained about smoke coming out of the chimney of the company while in operation. The NBI finding that some signatures in the four-page petition were written by one person appeared true in some instances, particularly among members of the same family, but on the whole many signatures appeared to be written by different persons; the barrio captain’s certification that he had not received any complaint on the matter must be because the complaint was sent directly to the Governor through the Acting Mayor.

Petitioner 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 presented a temporary permit to operate issued 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 pollution and prevent hazard to the health of the residents of the community.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner alleged that the closure order was issued in grave abuse of discretion and sought certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and preliminary injunction.
• Six Errors on Appeal: Petitioner alleged six errors by the CA, which the SC synthesized into the singular issue of whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering its questioned decision and resolution.
• Investment in Dollar-Earning Industry: Petitioner emphasized its huge investment in a dollar-earning industry.

• Mayor’s Police Power: Whether the acting mayor may deny a business permit or close a business for pollution despite the role of the NPCC/EMB in determining pollution control.
• Dissolution of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction: Whether the RTC and CA acted with grave abuse of discretion in dissolving the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.

• Mayor’s Police Power: Yes. The mayor has responsibility to protect inhabitants from pollution and, by virtue of police power, may deny a permit or close a business unless appropriate measures control or avoid injury to health.
• Dissolution of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction: No. The RTC may recall or dissolve a preliminary writ as circumstances warrant, and the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding the dissolution given the pollution findings and permit deficiencies.

• Mayor’s Police Power: The SC recognized that determining whether pollution requires control or prohibition of a business is essentially addressed to the then NPCC, now the EMB. But it held that the mayor has as much responsibility to protect inhabitants from pollution and, by virtue of police power, may deny an 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 residents from emissions. The acting mayor’s February 16, 1989 letter called attention to pollution and offensive odor affecting health, ordered cessation, and required building, mayor’s, and Region III-DENR anti-pollution permits. This was in response to residents’ complaint to the Governor. Thus the mayor had authority to order closure.

• Dissolution of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction: The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in grave abuse of discretion. The issuing tribunal may recall or dissolve the writ as circumstances warrant. The SC found circumstances against maintaining the writ: no mayor’s permit; the acting mayor’s letter; residents’ complaints; the NBI signature issue but many signatures by different persons; the barrio captain’s certification explained; closure after Marivic Guina’s investigation observed fumes going directly to surrounding houses and no proper air pollution device; petitioner failed to produce a Sta. Maria building permit and instead presented a Makati permit; the temporary NPCC permit was good only until May 25, 1988; and petitioner made no effort to extend or validate it or install a pollution-control device. These factors justified dissolution, and the CA correctly upheld the RTC.

• Police Power of the Local Executive over Pollution — A mayor has responsibility to protect inhabitants from pollution and may, under police power, deny a business permit or close a business unless appropriate measures control or avoid injury to health, even though the NPCC/EMB is tasked with determining pollution control. Applied: the acting mayor could order closure of petitioner’s plant due to fumes and health complaints.
• Preliminary Injunction as Discretionary and Dissolvable — The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and is not disturbed absent lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion; the issuing court may recall or dissolve the writ as circumstances warrant. Applied: the RTC dissolved the writ after reassessing the evidence, and the CA did not gravely abuse its discretion in upholding that action.
• Investment vs. Health and Environment — The need to promote investment and economic growth is accompanied by the equally essential imperative of protecting the health and lives of the people from pollution. Applied: petitioner’s huge investment in a dollar-earning industry did not justify maintaining the injunction against closure.

• “the mayor of a town has as much responsibility to protect its inhabitants from pollution, and by virture 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 SC defines the local executive’s police power over pollution despite the NPCC/EMB’s role.
• “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.” — The SC states the standard for reviewing injunction orders.
• “By the same token the court that issued such a preliminary relief may recall or dissolve the writ as the circumstances may warrant.” — The SC recognizes the issuing court’s power to dissolve a preliminary writ.
• “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.” — The SC balances investment against health and environmental protection.