2 - Technology Developers vs. CA, 193 SCRA 147 (Reversed by Supreme Court Resolution, Dated July

G.R. No.
94759 January 21, 1991

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS, INC., petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. NARCISO T. ATIENZA as Presiding Judge, Bulacan, RTC, and HON. VICENTE CRUZ, Acting Mayor
and the MUNICIPALITY OF STA. MARIA, BULACAN, respondents.
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.
The letter likewise requested Plant Manager Mr. Armando Manese to bring with him to the office of the mayor the
following: a) Building permit; b) Mayor's permit; c) Region III-Pollution of Environment and Natural Resources Anti-
Pollution Permit; and other document.
Petitioner, through its representative, undertook to comply with respondent's request for the production of the
required documents. In compliance with said undertaking, petitioner commenced to secure “Anti-Pollution Permit”
although among the permits previously secured prior to the operation of petitioner's plant was a "Temporary Permit
to Operate Air Pollution Installation" issued by the then National Pollution Control Commission (now Environmental
Management Bureau) and is now at a stage where the Environmental Management Bureau is trying to determine the
correct kind of anti-pollution devise to be installed as part of petitioner's request for the renewal of its permit.
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.
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.
Petitioner alleged that the closure order was issued in grave abuse of discretion.
The respondent judge found that petitioner is entitled to the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction. The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was issued upon petitioner's posting a bond in the amount of
P50,000.00.
Private respondent filed his motion for reconsideration. Petitioner's counsel failed to appear and the hearing
proceeded with the Provincial Prosecutor presenting his evidence.
Reassessing all the evidence adduced, the lower court issued an order (a) setting aside the order which granted a Writ of
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, and (b) dissolving the writ consequently issued.A motion for reconsideration was filed
by petitioner. Resolving the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the respondent judge issued an order denying said
motion for reconsideration.
Hence a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction was filed by petitioner in the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE: WON the appellate court committed a grave abuse of discretion in rendering its question decision and resolution.
RULING: NO. All these factors justify the dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction by the trial court and the
appellate court correctly upheld the action of the lower court.
1. No mayor's permit had been secured
2. The Acting Mayor called the attention of petitioner to the pollution emitted by the fumes of its plant whose
offensive odor "not only pollute the air in the locality but also affect the health of the residents in the area,"
so that petitioner was ordered to stop its operation until further orders and it was required to bring the
following: (1) Building permit; (2) Mayor's permit; and (3) Region III-Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Anti-Pollution permit
3. This action of the Acting Mayor was in response to the complaint of the residents of Barangay Guyong, Sta.
Maria, Bulacan, directed to the Provincial Governor through channels
4. The closure order of the Acting Mayor was issued only after an investigation was made by Marivic Guina who
in her report 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
5. 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.
6. 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.

2 - Technology Developers vs. CA, 193 SCRA 147 (Reversed by Supreme Court Resolution, Dated July

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 - Technology Developers vs. CA, 193 SCRA 147 (Reversed by Supreme Court Resolution, Dated July

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 - Technology Developers vs. CA, 193 SCRA 147 (Reversed by Supreme Court Resolution, Dated July

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

94759 January 21, 1991

You might also like