You are on page 1of 2


G.R. No. 94759, Jan. 21, 1991, 201 SCRA
Technology Developers, a corporation engaged in the manufacture and export of
charcoal briquette, received a letter from acting mayor Pablo Cruz: 1) ordering the full
cessation of its plant in Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan until further order, and 2)
requesting its Plant Manager to bring before the office of the mayor its building permit,
mayor's permit, and Region III-Pollution of Environment and Natural Resources Anti-Pollution Permit.
Technology Developers undertook to comply with the request to produce the required
documents. 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
Eventually, the acting mayor ordered that the plant premises be padlocked, effectively
causing the stoppage of operation. This was done without previous and reasonable
Technology Developers then instituted an action for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus with preliminary injunction against the acting mayor with Bulacan RTC,
alleging that the closure order was issued in grave abuse of discretion.
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.
Upon MR, the Provincial Prosecutor presented evidence as to the allegation that "Due to
the manufacturing process and nature of raw materials used, the fumes coming from the
factory may contain particulate matters which are hazardous to the health of the people.
As such, the company should cease operating until such a time that the proper air
pollution device is installed and operational."
Reassessing the evidence, the RTC set aside its order granted the writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction. The CA denied Technology Developer's petition for certiorari for
lack of merit.
W/N the acting mayor had a legal ground for ordering the stoppage of Technology
YES. The following circumstances 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 from
pollution, and by virtue of his police power, he may deny the application for a permit to
operate a business or otherwise close the same unless appropriate measures are taken
to control and/or avoid injury to the health of the residents of the community from the
emissions in the operation of the business.
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.
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
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
goes directly to the surrounding houses and that no proper air pollution device has been
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 on March 6, 1987.
6. While petitioner was able to present a temporary permit to operate by the then
National Pollution Control Commission on December 15, 1987, the permit was good only
up to May 25, 1988. 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.
Court takes note of the plea of petitioner focusing on its huge investment in this dollarearning industry. It must be stressed however, that concomitant with the need to
promote investment and contribute to the growth of the economy is the equally essential
imperative of protecting the health, nay the very lives of the people, from the
deleterious effect of the pollution of the environment.
The well-known rule is that the matter of issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is
addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and its action shall not be
disturbed on appeal unless it is demonstrated that it acted without jurisdiction or in
excess of jurisdiction or otherwise, in grave abuse of its discretion. By the same token
the court that issued such a preliminary relief may recall or dissolve the writ as the
circumstances may warrant.
Petition denied.