SECOND DIVISION

PACIFIC STEAM LAUNDRY, G.R. No. 165299

INC.,
Petitioner, Present:

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,*
BRION,
DEL CASTILLO, and
- versus -
ABAD, JJ.

LAGUNA LAKE
Promulgated:
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY,
December 18, 2009
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------
-x

DECISION

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 of laundry 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 of black smoke
emission from petitioners plant located 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 to the San Francisco Del Monte River.
Furthermore, the Investigation Report[4] stated that petitioners plant was
operating without LLDA clearance, AC/PO-ESI, and Discharge Permit
from LLDA. On 5 September 2001, the Environmental Quality
Management Division of LLDA conducted wastewater sampling of
petitioners effluent.[5] The result of the laboratory analysis showed
non-compliance with 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 MANAGER

PACIFIC STEAM LAUNDRY, INC.
114 Roosevelt Avenue, Brgy. Paraiso
Quezon City

Subject: Notice of Violation

PH-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 for Inland Water Class C specifically in terms of TSS,
BOD, Oil/Grease and Color. (Please see attached laboratory analysis)

In view thereof, you are hereby directed to submit corrective measures 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 pollutive wastewater 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. CATAQUIZ
General Manager
Petitioner submitted its application for LLDA Clearance and Discharge
Permit and informed LLDA that it would undertake the necessary
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-compliance with effluent standards in terms of TSS, BOD,
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), and Oil/Grease Concentration. It was
reported that petitioners wastewater 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 of Oil/Grease Concentration.
Meanwhile, on 15 April 2002, a Pollution Control and Abatement case
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] the pertinent

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 date of 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 necessary wastewater
treatment to abate the water pollution.

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 day during 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
September 2001 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 the date 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 2002 sampling confirmed that respondents effluent already complied with the
standard showing that its water pollution has ceased. Respondent did not submit any
proof of its actual operation hence, the penalty shall be computed 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 steam Laundry, Inc. is

hereby ordered to pay the accumulated daily penalty amounting to ONE HUNDRED
SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND (PhP172,000.00) PESOS within fifteen(15) days
from receipt hereof as a condition 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.

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 Pollution Control 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 pay a fine not exceeding five thousand
pesos per day for every day during which such violation
or default continues; and the Commission 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 carrying 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 preservation of undue
ecological disturbances, deterioration and pollution. To correct
deficiencies 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 President Marcos further issued E.O. 927,
which granted the LLDA additional powers and functions, viz:

Section 4. Additional Powers and Functions. - The

authority shall have the following powers and functions:

xxx

(d) Make, alter or modify orders

requiring the discontinuance of
pollution specifying the conditions
and time within which such
continuance must be accomplished.

xxx

(i) Exercise such powers and perform such

other 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 logically implied
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 powers can 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 is
impotent by itself to punish or deal with it?[16] (Emphasis in
the original)

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 impose

penalties 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 thePollution 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 shall assume the powers
and functions of the 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 Environmental Management 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:
 xxx
(e) Issue orders or decisions to compel compliance with the provisions of this Decree
and its implementing rules and regulations only after 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 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, 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 and sewage treatment 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 septic tanks or their equivalent. The Commission may impose
reasonable fees and charges for the issuance or renewal of all permits
herein required.
xxx
(j) Serve as arbitrator for the determination of reparations, or restitution of the
damages and losses resulting from pollution.
(k) Deputize in writing or request assistance of appropriate government agencies or
instrumentalities for the purpose of enforcing this Decree and its implementing rules
and regulations and the orders and decisions of the Commission.
xxx
(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 to carry 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 industrial waste disposal
systems and the issuance of permits in accordance with the provisions
of this Executive Order; inspect the construction and maintenance of
sewage works and industrial 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 and industrial waste 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 compliance with
the provisions of this Executive Order and its
implementing rules and regulations only after proper
notice and hearing.
d) Make, alter or modify orders requiring the discontinuance of
pollution specifying the conditions and 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 and sewage treatment 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 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 this executive Order and its
implementing rules and regulations and the orders and 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 and
responsibilities 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 and abatement of
pollution, for the discharge of sewage, industrial waste, or 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 in general,[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, in Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of Appeals,[25] the

Court held that the adjudication of pollution cases generally 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 other government agencies or instrumentalities on
the same subject.

In case of development projects involving specific 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 control
standards 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. Under Section 16 of EO
192, the Environmental Management Bureau assumed 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
hereby abolished and their powers and functions are
hereby integrated into the Environmental Management
Bureau in accordance with Section 24(c) hereof, subject to
Section 19 hereof. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

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 powers and
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 P1,062,000 representing 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 and

aquatic resources of Laguna de Bay and its tributaries
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 and management.
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. In Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of
Appeals,[27] the Court upheld the power of LLDA to issue
an ex-parte cease 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, LLDAs power 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 investigation
result 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 otherwise
dispose thereto any organic or inorganic matter or any
substance in gaseous or liquid form that shall cause
pollution thereof.
xxx

SEC 9. Penalties. x x x
(b) Any person who shall violate any of the previous provisions of
Section Eight of this Decree or 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 to six years,
or by both fine and imprisonment, and in addition such person may be
required or enjoined from continuing such violation as hereinafter
provided.
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 2004 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 75238.
SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:
 TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE

ARTURO D. BRION MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE

ROBERTO A. ABAD
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE

ATTESTATION
I ATTEST THAT THE CONCLUSIONS IN THE ABOVE DECISION
HAD BEEN REACHED IN CONSULTATION BEFORE THE CASE
WAS ASSIGNED TO THE WRITER OF THE OPINION OF THE
COURTS DIVISION.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the
Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
*
Designated additional member per Special Order No. 776.
[1]
Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga
and Eduardo F. Sundiam, concurring.
[3]
Rollo , p. 74; Indorsement dated 6 June 2001.
[4]
Id. at 77-78.
[5]
Under Section 3(d) of the Effluent Regulations, DENR Administrative Order No. 35, Series of 1990,
effluent is defined as any wastewater, partially or completely treated, or in its natural state,
flowing out a manufacturing plant, industrial plant or treatment plant.
[6]
Rollo, p. 79; Result of Analysis dated 18 September 2001.
[7]
Id. at 33.
[8]
Id. at 81. See petitioners letter dated 15 November 2001 addressed to General Manager Cataquiz
of LLDA.
[9]
Id. at 82-83.
[10]
Id. at 84-85.
[11]
CA rollo, p. 23.
[12]
Id. at 24-33.
[13]
Rollo, pp. 45-46.
[14]
Id. at 46. Although the LLDA mistakenly stated in its Order that the imposable fine is P5,000 per
day instead of P1,000 per day, the dispositive portion of the Order imposing a total penalty
of P172,000 is based on the correct daily penalty of P1,000 multiplied by 172 days during
which the pollutive wastewater discharge occurred.
[15]
Id. at 50-51.
[16]
Id. at 24-26.
[17]
Id. at 103.
[18]
PROVIDING FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT,
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES; RENAMING IT AS THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
[19]
Otherwise known as the National Pollution Control Decree of 1976.
[20]
AN ACT CREATING THE LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PRESCRIBING
ITS POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
[21]
AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED FORTY EIGHT
HUNDRED FIFTY, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY ACT OF 1966.
[22]
Section 1 of RA 4850, as amended by PD 813.
[23]
FURTHER DEFINING CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE LAGUNA LAKE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
[24]
Republic of the Phils. v. Marcopper Mining Corp., 390 Phil. 708 (2000).
[25]
G.R. No. 110120, 16 March 1994, 231 SCRA 292.
[26]
G.R. No. 169228, 11 September 2009.
[27]
Supra note 25.