'

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS'

Manila

.WATER FOR ALL REFAND MOYEMENT, INC., ETC., Petitioner, -versusCA-G.R. SP NO.
OOO2O

AND SEWERAGE SYSTEMS, ET AL..

Respondents.
x--

MA NI I,A WA'TERWORKS

--

-------

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

NOTICE OF RESOLUTION
Sir.4VIadam:

that on Jul! 26.2013. a RESOLUTION a copy of which is hgreto attached, was promulgated by the SP SEVENTEENTH DMSION of the Court of Appeals in the above-entitled case, the original of which is noiv on filc in this Oflice.
Please take notice

Truly yours,
ISABE
PATTaGALAN-MADAR/1NG

'L4RIA Exec
Copy furnished:
Tapaz & Ass?ciales reg. w/ card (for petitioncr) 4l -B N. Romualdez St. BF Homes Subd., I 120 Quezon City

Cle* ofcou

III

Metrupolitan llaterworks and Sewerage S/srern 4/l' Administration Bldg. N{WSS Complex,489 Katipunan Road Balara- Il05 Quezon Cit)

reg.

Mtlrila

Waler Company, Inc. - reg. Mdynilad Water Systens, It c, - rcg. MWSS Comflex 489 Katipunah Road, Balara
1105 Quezofl

City

Republic of the Philippines

@ourt of 9pprats
Manila

SPECIAL SEVENTEENIII{ DMISION

its President, by RODOLFO B. JAVELLANA, JR.,

Petilioner,

'Ptz AkRo, 1., chairy er s on MACALINO, & CORALES,,.

- oef5as

MANILA WATERWORKS AND

SEWERAGE SYSTEMS,

COMPANY,INC.,
Ilespondenls.

Promulgated: .1

1rJ1

iutl

RESOLUTION
CORALES, /.:

This is a Petition for Writ

and Section 4, ltule 7 of the Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-&SC).

Kalikasan with Issuance of

of Procedure for Environmental

1 1

Vice Justi@ Sesinando E. Villon per Offrce Order No. 299-13 ABR dated July 22, 2013.

Rollo, wqs 1-31.

CA G.R. SP No.00020

Iretitioner claims to be an organizalion composcd of citizens who arc consumers of public rcspondent Manila Waterworks and Scwr:rage Systems (MWSS) and is suing pursuant to its corporatc objectivc to act as a watchdog for water consumer rights.

alleges that the MWSS is using a mmbined drainage sewerage systcm, opcratcd without the ncccssary permits from the l)cpartmcnt of Environmcnt and Natural Resources and/or Dcpartmcnt of tlealth. According to petitioner, in a combined drainage sr:wcragc systcm, rainwatcr and raw sewage are collected in a single pipe system and when there is more rainwater than the system can handle, a mixture of raw sewage and rainwater goes dircctly from the sewer system to a body of watcr without having bccn treated first. ln effect it is the samc as dtrmping highly toxic raw sewage into a natural body of water, an act prohibited by law. I'etiti()ncr;rlso contc.nds ihat thc installation of the combinr'd drainage sewerage violated: (a) Section 4, Presidential Decree No. 1151; (b) Sections 72 to 74, Code on Sanitation of the Philippincs, Presidcntial Dccree No. 856; (c) Articlc 75 of the Water Code of the l'}hilippincs; (d) Scctions 8, 27 (a) and 27 @ of the Clean Water Act of 2004, Rerpublic Act No. 9275; and (e) The Writ of Continuing Mandamus as issucd by the Supreme Court in MMDA v. Conccmcd Clitizens <rf Manila Bay, C.R. Nos. 171.947 -48, December 18, 2008. lt added that in passing the entire cost of thc crcation of the sewerage system to thc consumers, thc Maynilad Water Systems, Inc., (MWSI) and the Manila Water Company, Inc. (MWCI), in collusion with
MWSS, are circumvcnting the Polluter Pays Principlc.

It

To support its allcga{ions, petitioner appended to its petition: thr: Dccision of this Court in CA-G.R. SP No. 112023 entitled " Manila Watcr Cofttpfiny, lnc. u. The Regional Director, ef ai." holding that MWCI violated Section U of thc Philipplne Clean Water Act of 2004 and imposing upon it paymcnt of fine; a rainfall variability lecture handout; tlre Concession Agrccmcnt bctwccn MWSS and MWCI; the

C.4 G.R. sP No. 00020

Paoe 3

of

MWSI Business Plan September 200t1; the MWCI Ilate llehasing Approved Business I'lan and its Minutes of Meeting; an articlc by .lohn Tihbets entitled "Combincd Sewer Systcms: Down, Dirty and Out of l)ate published in the Environmental Health l)erspectives
(2005); and tho calculation of the ratc rcbasing adiustmcnt.

Aftcr a careful pcrusal of the petition and its annexes, this Court resolves to dismiss thc petition for being insufficicnt in form
and substancc. 'lhe requiremcnts under Scction 2, Rulc 7 of thc Rules of Procedurc for Environment Cases are glaringly dcficient in this petition, k) wit:

1. Thc personal circumstancos of the pctitioner

and its

pcrsonality to filc thc suit was not shown. Petitioner claims to be a non-stock non-profit corporation and is thus suing as a juridical pcrson but evidence of its incorporrition was not attachcd to thc pclitiorr. livcn if We consider it as a n organization of cil iz-cns who arc consumers of M!!SS, there is no proof of its accreditation or registration with any government agency as required in Section 1,3 Rule 7 of the Rulos of Procedurc for Environmcnt Cascs:

2. It is unclear whethcr the combincd sewerage system is

alrcady operating or is only among thc proiected business plan of t:spondt:nts and the arcas whr:re thc allegcd combined scwcrage systcm would bc/has br:en installcd wcre not sufficiently identified;
Sections 72 t<t 74 of the Code of Sanitation does not prohibit the installation of a combined sewerage systcm for storm water and sanitary sewage;a
SL'C. 1. Nature of lhe writ. Thc writ is a reme.dy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorizcd by law, p.eople's organization, nongovernmental organization, or any public intereit group aocredited by or registered with any govemment agencl, on behalf of persons whose mnstitutional right to a balanced and heaftnful ecolooy is violated, or threatened wili violation by an unlaw,ful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, lnvolvin{t cnvlronmcntal damage of such magnitude as to preludice the life, health or

3.

'

c(res or Propcdy olnhdbldnts in lwo rr r Sc. 74. Requirments in the Operation of Sewerage works aM Sewag@ Treatrnent

morc

provinces.

Plants. -

(c) Storm water shall bc dis.harged to a storm sewer, sanitary sewage shall be dischargd to sewerage liystem carryng sanitary sewagc only; but thls should not prcvent the installation ofa combined system. (Emphasrs supplied)
a

Thc main violation contemplated in the petition is thc absence of approval from the Department of Health, Environmcntal Management IJureau of thc Departmcnt of Bnvironment and Natural Ilesourccs and the failrrrc to securc an Environmental lmpact Stalorncnt in respond<:nts attempt to install and operatc a combined r.lrainage sellcrag,r systems. Iloh'evcr, the rclation of this alleged violations to the purported environmental damage was not
cstablished;

4.

Pctitioner neithcr cited nor appcnded in their petition ar.ry scientific or other cxpcrt studies linking the combined sewcrage systcm to thc allegcd damagc to thc cnvironment;
The prayer for completc accountirg of environmental fees and thc cessation of its collection is not within thc ambit of the Writ of Kalikasan;

5.

6.

17 'Ihc violation of thc Continrring Wril of Mandamus is

better addressed to the Supreme Court which exercises continuing jurisdiction ovcr the agencies involved thercin uniil full compliance with the Supremc Cou rt's Ordcr has been shown.5
For a pctition for issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan to prospcr, thc petition must at lcast contain thc following allegations: (1) tht:

cnvironmental law, rule or statute being violated; (2) the thrcat or violation of one's constitutional right to a balanced and hcalthful ecology; and (3) the corrcsponding cnvironmental damagc of such magnitude that threatcns or prcjudices thc life, hcalth or propcrty of those affected.o I lere, the petition failed to assert and demonstrate the cnvironmental damagc thai would bc caused by thc installation of the combincd scwerage sysicm.

Ancnt the prayer for Temporary Environmental Protcction Ordcr undcr Scction [J, Ruk: 2 of thc. Rules of Procedure for
s 6
See i4iVDA v. Concemed Residenis of lYanila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48. February 15, 2011. See Sec,tion I of the Rules of Procldore on Environmenfal Casc-s.

Cl.R

SP

l{o-

q[20

Pdge s

ol5

Environmental Cases (TEPO), the petition is bereft of any allegations and showing of an extreme urgency and of pefifioner suffering grave injustice and irreparable injury thai would justify the relief prayed for.

::'-

'.

-::-:-.:

+liF
remedies warranted by the relevant

is DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of any appropriate

civif criminal or administrative

circumstances.

SOORDERED. 0rigin{_Sigred PEDRO B. CORALES

Assochte lustice

0riginal Signed NORMANDIE B. PIZARRO

Associate hrstice

0riginal Signed FLORITO S. MACALINO

Associate

luslice

tl.b

rr.rd &Grtil&
Coyt

Fa 15
L^

?z
z

'E

=<al EP o^=

Fd=
=.,e

r
I

3=

gE.
g1

E::l ,l tS -tDx vri

3:-P. !! E\

Pi!i' -s
D

Fi

?.

ti

I
,i
I

a F

lr

e E G q ll IIr =
I

Er \R +l\
\:

\,

\P

E'

i3

ffi4

BR
f=
1