Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
EH405
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 herein is a domestic private corporation engaged in the
manufacture and export of charcoal briquette. They received a letter from
private respondent acting mayor Pablo N. Cruz, ordering the full cessation of
the operation of the petitioner's plant and requested Plant Manager Mr.
Armando Manese to bring with him to the office of the mayor specific permits.
It sought to secure the Region III-Pollution of Environment and Natural
Resources Anti-Pollution Permit although prior to the operation of the plant, a
Temporary Permit to Operate Air Pollution Installation was issued to it.
Petitioners also sent its representatives to the office of the mayor to secure a
mayors permit but were not entertained. Without notice, the acting mayor
ordered that the plant premises be padlocked, effectively causing the
stoppage of operation. Because of this, petitioner instituted an action
for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus with
against private respondent with the court.
preliminary
injunction
RTCs Decisions:
The RTC found that the issuance of the writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction was proper, ordering the acting mayor to immediately
revoke his closure order and allow Technology Developers to resume its
normal business operations until the case has been adjudicated on the
merits. The RTC on their decision set aside its order granted the writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction.
CAs Decision:
The appellate Court also denied Technology Developer's petition for certiorari
for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the lower court correctly ordered the dissolution of the writ of
preliminary injunction sought by petitioner?
Held:
It is well-settled rule that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is
addressed to RTC and shall not be disturbed on appeal unless shown that it
acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.
Therefore, SC enumerated the circumstances that militate against the
maintenance of the writ of preliminary injunction sought by petitioner:
1. No mayor's permit had been secured. While it is true that the matter of
determining whether there is a pollution of the environment that requires
control if not prohibition of the operation of a business is essentially
addressed to the Environmental Management Bureau of the Department
of Environment and
Natural
Resources,
it
must
be
recognized
that the mayor of a town has as much responsibility to protect its inhabitants