Republic of the Philippines
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City
IN
THE
MATTER
OF
POLLUTION CONTROL AND
ABATEMENT CASE,
DENR Case No. 8305
GOLDEN PEAK FOOD CORP.
(Formerly QUIMSON Foods,
Inc.),
Appellant.
x------------------------x
DECISION
Before this Office is the Appeal1 filed by Golden Peak Food
Corp. (Golden Peak) from the Order2 dated November 23, 2004
issued by the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA), Rizal
Provincial Capitol Ground, Pasig City, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
respondent QUIMSON FOODS CORP. located at
QFI BLDG. Ordoveza Compound, Barangay
Maitim, Bay, Laguna, is hereby ordered to pay
the accumulated daily penalty of THREE
HUNDRED NINETEEN THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED PESOS (PhP319,500.00) within fifteen
(15) days from receipt hereof as a condition sine
qua non for the dismissal of the instant case.
SO ORDERED.
1
2
Attached in the Records, p. 289
Id., p.298-300
DENR Case No. 8305
Page 1 of 9
Facts of the Case
The pertinent facts in the said Order are quoted for ready
reference, viz:
A careful evaluation of the records of the case
shows that on 10 March 1998, an inspection was
conducted on respondent’s premises. It was
found that the company is operating without the
necessary clearance and permit from the
Authority. A Notice of Violation was issued
against the respondent on 25 March 1998
requiring said respondent to submit its
application for the LLDA Clearance and
Discharge Permit within sixty (60) days and to
pay an administrative fine of Five Thousand
(PhP5,000) Pesos per year of operating without
the said clearance and permit. On 16 April 1998,
effluent samples were collected for analysis.
Laboratory results thereof revealed noncompliance with the effluent standards for inland
Class “C” waters particularly in terms of TSS,
BOD, Oil/Grease, pH, and Color. Accordingly,
on 18 May 1998, an Ex-Parte Order was issued
requiring herein respondent to show cause why a
cease and desist order should not be issued
against it and likewise notifying it of a penalty of
One Thousand (PhP1,000) Pesos per day for
discharging pollutive wastewater to be reckoned
from the date of its initial sampling to the date of
its full cessation. In response herein, respondent
submitted its corrective/remedial measures for
the abatement and control of its pollutive
wastewater discharge.
Subsequent inspections were conducted on 23
July 1998 and 04 March 1999 where samples of its
effluent were collected for analysis. Laboratory
results thereof showed its continued noncompliance with the standard parameters. During
the public hearing on 26 April 1999, herein
respondent was given ample time to institute
corrective measures and then pay its daily
penalty and administration fine. On 27 August
1999, a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) was issued
as a result of the compliance monitoring
DENR Case No. 8305
Page 2 of 9
conducted on 25 June 1999 whereby the
laboratory result showed non-compliance with
the standard. On 06 September 1999, a Temporary
Lifting Order was issued based on the substantial
compliance made by the respondent of all the
conditions agreed upon in the said public hearing
and its payment of fifty (50%) percent on the total
accumulated penalties amount to One Hundred
Thirty Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos
(PhP133,500.00).
Finally, in 28 March 2000, an inspection was
conducted and the laboratory results of the
wastewater collected revealed conformity with
the effluent standards. It was found that the
respondent discharges its effluent from its newly
constructed/upgraded wastewater treatment
facility. Subsequent laboratory analyses revealed
conformity with the standard parameters set by
the Authority.
During the public hearing on 03 March 2004,
however, respondent’s representative manifested
that Quimson Foods, Inc. (“Quimson”) has now
changed its name into GOLDEN PEAK FOOD
CORP. (“Golden Peak”) and was now under the
new management since 24 April 2002. Thus, the
balance of the daily penalty in the amount of
Three Hundred Nineteen Thousand Five
Hundred Pesos (PhP319,500) imposed against the
latter as the company who took over the
management of Quimson as stated in the Order to
Pay dated 04 May 2004 should be imposed not
with the Golden Peak, but with Quimson. It also
requested the reconsideration of its assessment by
substantially reducing if not completely
condoning the penalty imposed. In support of the
said allegations, respondent filed its Position
Paper on 01 July 2004 with the attached Asset
Acquisition Agreement stating among others in
Article IV, 4.1 (w) thereof a stipulation that
Summa Foods Corporations now Golden Peak
Foods Corporation would be free and harmless
from all the liabilities arising from this case, to
wit:
xxx
DENR Case No. 8305
Page 3 of 9
Thus, the instant case is being decided on the
basis of the aforesaid stipulations specifically
embodied in the Asset Acquisition Agreement
executed by and between Summa Foods
Corporation
now
Golden
Peak
Foods
Corporation as the buyer and Quimson Foods
Corp. as the Seller. As found, the respondent
Quimson is still the one liable for the payment of
the remaining balance in the daily penalty
imposed against it in the amount of Three
Hundred Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred
Pesos (PhP319,500.00) for discharging pollutive
wastewater.
xxx
On November 23, 2004, the LLDA issued the assailed Order.
Proceedings Undertaken in the Central Office
In connection with the Appeal, the Officer-in-charge, Office of
the Director for Legal Service issued an Order3 dated January 25,
2007, directing Golden Peak Food Corp. to submit its Appeal
Memorandum and pay the appeal fee and show compliance thereto
within fifteen days from receipt hereof; otherwise this Office shall
dismiss the Appeal without further notice. The Laguna Lake
Development Authority was also ordered to submit their Answer
within fifteen days from receipt of Appeal Memorandum; otherwise,
the case shall be resolved without the benefit of their Answer.
Allegations of the Appellant
In its Appeal Memorandum4 dated February 1, 2005, Golden
Peak averred that the LLDA erred in finding Golden Peak liable for
the accumulated daily penalty for Three Hundred Nineteen
Thousand Five Hundred Pesos(PhP319,500.00).
3
4
Attached in the DENR Folder, p. 25-27
Id., p. 15-19
DENR Case No. 8305
Page 4 of 9
Issue
Whether or not the LLDA erred in its findings in the assailed
Order.
Ruling
The Appeal is without merit.
The LLDA did not commit any error in issuing the assailed
Order considering that it took all the necessary action to remedy the
malfeasance/misfeasance of the concessionaire, Golden Peak. As
shown in the records of the case, that on March 10, 1998, an
inspection was conducted on Golden Peak’s premises. It was found
that the company is operating without the necessary clearance and
permit from the LLDA. A Notice of Violation was issued against
Golden Peak on March 25, 1998 requiring it to submit its application
for the LLDA Clearance and Discharge Permit within sixty (60) days
and to pay an administrative fine of Five Thousand (PhP5,000) Pesos
per year of operating without the said clearance and permit.
As a matter of fact, LLDA issued a Show Cause Order to
Golden Peak to afford an opportunity to convince LLDA that their
findings were erroneous but to no avail. Their request to reduce the
penalty was also denied as they failed to produce verified
documentary evidence as required under the rules of the LLDA.
Thus, the penalty imposed thereon is within LLDA's mandate under
Republic Act 48505 (RA 4850)
RA 4850 created the LLDA to manage and develop the Laguna
Lake region. RA 4850, as amended by Presidential Decree 8136,
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.
An Act Creating the Laguna Lake Development Authority, Prescribing its Powers, Functions
and Duties, Providing Funds Therefor, and For other Purposes
6 Amending Certain Sections of Republic Act Numbered Forty Eight Hundred Fifty, Otherwise
Known as the “Laguna Lake Development Authority Act of 1966”
5
DENR Case No. 8305
Page 5 of 9
In Pacific Steam Laundry, Inc. v. Laguna Lake Development
Authority7, the Supreme Court has categorically declared 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.
Hence, LLDA was just acting in pursuant to its authority as a
quasi-judicial body specifically mandated to manage and develop the
Laguna Lake region.
The penalty imposed by the LLDA is also well within the
amount prescribed by law. The Supreme Court in the same case of
Pacific Steam Laundry, Inc. v. Laguna Lake Development Authority8 has
upheld the imposition by the LLDA of the penalty of one thousand
Pesos (P1,000) per day since it was made only after a thorough
investigation, and such amount was in accord with the provision of
Presidential Decree 984 (PD 984). The Supreme Court states:
xxx 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 results
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
xxx
PD 984 specifically provides:
SEC. 8. Prohibitions. No person shall throw,
run, drain, or otherwise dispose into any of
the water, air and/or land resources of the
7
8
G.R. No. 165299, December 18, 2009
Id.
DENR Case No. 8305
Page 6 of 9
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. (Emphasis supplied)
Based on the foregoing, the penalty imposed by LLDA was not
excessive and unfounded. It was only implementing the clear
provisions of the law. Records show that on April 16, 1998 until
March 28, 2000, Golden Peak failed to conform to the standards set
under the law. LLDA imposed a penalty of Five Hundred Sixty Eight
Thousand Pesos (PhP568,000.00) for 568 days of non-performance to
the said effluent standards. Nevertheless, Golden Peak already paid a
partial amount of Two Hundred Forty Eight Thousand Five Hundred
Pesos (PhP248,000.00). This is why the LLDA arrived at penalty of
Three Hundred Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred Pesos
(PhP319,500.00) as stated in the assailed Order.
In its appeal memorandum, Golden Peak would aver that
LLDA erred in its Order stating that what it was discharging was
only equivalent to domestic waste and not industrial waste.
DENR Case No. 8305
Page 7 of 9
In the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Amor Hachero9, the
Supreme Court explained the effect of the presumption of regularity
of official acts, viz:
xxx
The presumption of regularity of official acts may
be rebutted by affirmative evidence of
irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The
presumption, however, prevails until it is
overcome by no less than clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the
presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive.
xxx (Emphasis supplied)
Lastly, Golden Peak would raise the fact that Golden Peak and
Quimson Food were different entities is of no moment. This Office is
not a court of law to interpret the Asset Acquisition Agreement
between the two companies. If there is any violation committed
pursuant to such contract, this is not the proper venue to make a
determination.
WHEREFORE, the Appeal filed by Golden Peak Food Corp.
(Formerly Quimson Foods, Inc.) is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, Philippines, ___________________.
By Authority of the Secretary
ATTY. ERNESTO D. ADOBO JR., CESO I
Undersecretary
Legal, Administration,
Human Resources and Legislative Affairs
rem
9
mpa
rbt
G.R. No. 200973, May 30, 2016
DENR Case No. 8305
Page 8 of 9
Copy furnished:
Golden Peak Food Corporation
Appellant
Brgy. Maitim, Bay
Laguna
Atty. Arsenio G. Bonifacio
Counsel for Appellant
3/F, Peaksun Bldg.
1505 Princeton St.cor Shaw Blvd
Mandaluyong City
The General Manager and
Public Hearing Committee
Laguna Lake Development Authority
Satellite Office
Rizal Provincial Capitol Compound
Shaw Blvd., Pasig City
The Assistant Secretary
Legal Affairs, DENR
DENR Case No. 8305
Page 9 of 9