Download Alexandra Corp v LLDA Digest PDF

TitleAlexandra Corp v LLDA Digest
TagsCrime & Justice Virtue Government Justice Wastewater
File Size103.5 KB
Total Pages2
Document Text Contents
Page 1

THE ALEXANDRA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION vs. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT



Philippine Realty and Holdings, Inc. (PhilRealty) developed, established, and constructed The Alexandra Condominium Complex

from 1987 to 1993.

On 2 September 1987, the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission issued a Development Permit to PhilRealty to develop the
project. In the Development Permit, PhilRealty was required to submit its condominium plans to the Building Official of Pasig
City. Architect Perez, then Building Official of Pasig City, reviewed the Site Development and Location Plan as well as the
Sanitary/Plumbing Plans and Specifications of the project. Architect Perez issued a Building Permit and a Sanitary/Plumbing
Permit acknowledging the fixtures to be installed but without indicating the System of Disposal including a Waste Water
Treatment Plan.

PhilRealty turned over the project to TACC.

On 24 June 1998, Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) advised TACC that its wastewater did not meet government
effluent standards provided in Sections 68 and 69 of the 1978 National Pollution Control Commission Rules and Regulations
(NPCC) as amended by Department of Energy and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order No. 34. LLDA informed
TACC that it must put up its own Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) for its effluent discharge to meet government standards.

In a Notice of Violation LLDA directed TACC to submit corrective measures to abate or control its water effluents discharged
into the Laguna de Bay.LLDA likewise imposed upon TACC a daily fine of P1,000 from 26 March 1999 until full cessation of
pollutive wastewater discharge.

TACC entered into an agreement with World Chem Marketing for the construction of the STP for P7,550,000.

In an Order dated 19 July 1999, LLDA stated that the daily penalty was imposed upon TACC for the pollutive wastewater
discharge, and to condone the penalty would be tantamount to tolerating the pollution of the river bodies and the Laguna de Bay
which is contrary to LLDAs mandate.

On 1 April 2002, TACC requested LLDA to dismiss the water pollution case against it because of the favorable analysis
undertaken by the LLDAs Pollution Control Division. TACC requested LLDA to condone the imposition of the penalty
of P1,000 per day since March 1999 in recognition of the remedial and corrective measures it undertook to comply with
government standards.

On 4 September 2003, LLDA issued an ORDER requiring TACC to pay a fine of P1,062,000 representing the penalty from 26
March 1999 to 20 February 2002.

TACC filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.




Court of Appeals



Petition for certiorari was prematurely filed. Pointed out that TACC failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the 4 September

2003 ORDER before filing the petition before the CA. The Court of Appeals ruled that due to the transfer of LLDA to the DENR

under Executive Order No. 149 (EO 149), TACC should have first resorted to an administrative remedy before the DENR

Secretary prior to filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.


ISSUEs:

1. WON an admnitrative remedy was available to TACC;
2. WON LLDA has the power to impose the penalty;
3. WON TACC’s request for comporomise before LLDA for the condonation of penalty was proper.

Similer Documents