Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 165 views

    Universal Robina V Laguna Lake

    Uploaded by

    gem_mata
    Universal Robina was fined by the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) for failing to comply with wastewater standards at its corn oil refinery plant. LLDA ordered Universal Robina to pay over 1.2 million pesos in penalties. Universal Robina appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the court ruled the appeal was improper because Universal Robina did not first exhaust its administrative remedies by appealing LLDA's order to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary as required. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, noting the importance of allowing administrative agencies to perform their functions and the opportunity Universal Robina had to provide documents to LLDA to reduce penalties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Universal Robina V Laguna Lake

    Uploaded by

    gem_mata
    165 views2 pages
    Universal Robina was fined by the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) for failing to comply with wastewater standards at its corn oil refinery plant. LLDA ordered Universal Robina to pay over 1.2 million pesos in penalties. Universal Robina appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the court ruled the appeal was improper because Universal Robina did not first exhaust its administrative remedies by appealing LLDA's order to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary as required. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, noting the importance of allowing administrative agencies to perform their functions and the opportunity Universal Robina had to provide documents to LLDA to reduce penalties.

    Original Description:

    Envi Case Sample

    Original Title

    Universal Robina v Laguna Lake

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Universal Robina was fined by the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) for failing to comply with wastewater standards at its corn oil refinery plant. LLDA ordered Universal Robina to pay over 1.2 million pesos in penalties. Universal Robina appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the court ruled the appeal was improper because Universal Robina did not first exhaust its administrative remedies by appealing LLDA's order to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary as required. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, noting the importance of allowing administrative agencies to perform their functions and the opportunity Universal Robina had to provide documents to LLDA to reduce penalties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    165 views2 pages

    Universal Robina V Laguna Lake

    Uploaded by

    gem_mata
    Universal Robina was fined by the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) for failing to comply with wastewater standards at its corn oil refinery plant. LLDA ordered Universal Robina to pay over 1.2 million pesos in penalties. Universal Robina appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the court ruled the appeal was improper because Universal Robina did not first exhaust its administrative remedies by appealing LLDA's order to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary as required. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, noting the importance of allowing administrative agencies to perform their functions and the opportunity Universal Robina had to provide documents to LLDA to reduce penalties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    UNIVERSAL ROBINA v LAGUNA LAKE

    Antecedent Facts:

     Universal Robina is engaged in the manufacture of animal feeds in Bagong


    Ilog, Pasig City.
     LLDA, in its laboratory analysis of UR’s corn oil refinery plants wastewater
    found that it failed to comply with the government standards under DENR
    Administrative orders.
     LLDA, after receiving a phone-complaint conducted another analysis which
    showed its continued failure to conform to its effluent standards in terms of
    Total Suspended Solids, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Color and
    Oil/Grease.
     UR notified LLDA of its plan to upgrade the wastewater treatment facility of its
    corn oil refinery plant in an effort to comply with environmental laws.
     A resampling was conducted again which showed that the plant finally
    complied with the standards. Petitioner then requested for the reduction of
    penalties.
     After hearing, the LLDA issued its Order to Pay with the amount of 1, 247,000
    covering 932 days from initial sampling to re sampling and another 448 days
    from when the re-sampling was done until April 17, 2007.
     Petitioner moved to reconsider, praying that it be ordered to pay only 560,000
    pesos on grounds that the LLDA erred in first, adopting a straight computation
    of the periods of violation based on the flawed assumption that petitioner was
    operating on a daily basis − without excluding, among others, the period
    during which the LLDA Laboratory underwent rehabilitation work.
     LLDA denied the petitioners’ move for reconsideration so it appealed to the
    Court of Appeals. CA confirmed the orders of LLDA. The appellate court held
    that while petitioner may have offered documentary evidence to support its
    assertion that the days when it did not operate must be excluded from the
    computation, the LLDA has the prerogative to disregard the same for being
    unverified, hence, unreliable.
     The appellate court went on to chide petitioners petition for certiorari as
    premature since the law provides for an appeal from decisions or orders of
    the LLDA to the DENR Secretary or the Office of the President, a remedy
    which should have first been exhausted before invoking judicial intervention.
     Petitioner cites deprivation of due process and lack of any plain, speedy or
    adequate remedy as grounds which exempted it from complying with the rule
    on exhaustion of administrative remedies.

    ISSUES:

    WON the appeal was proper.

    RULING:

    No, the appeal to the CA is not proper.

     The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a cornerstone of


    our judicial system. The thrust of the rule is that courts must allow
    administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their
    responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective
    competence.
     EO 192, reorganizing the DENR, created the Pollution Adjudication Board
    which adjudicates pollution cases, including the as arbitrator for
    determining reparation, or restitution of the damages and losses resulting
    from pollution.
     Petitioner had thus available administrative remedy of appeal to the DENR
    Secretary. Its contrary arguments to show that an appeal to the DENR
    Secretary would be an exercise in futility as the latter merely adopts the
    LLDAs findings is at best, speculative and presumptuous.
     It is noted that during one of the hearings, the LLDA gave petitioner the
    opportunity to submit within fifteen days.any valid documents to show
    proof of its non-operating dates that would be necessary for the possible
    reduction of the accumulated daily penalties, but petitioner failed to
    comply therewith.

    You might also like