Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In any case, it bears emphasizing that the While the Joint Decision resolves the JG Summit
measure of the substantive validity of an and First Gas appeals, these cases, pertain to the
ordinance is the underlying factual basis for same appeal filed by Batangas City and the
which it was enacted. Hence, without factual Sangguniang Panlungsod from the Decision of
basis, an ordinance will necessarily fail the the RTC nullifying the Assailed Ordinance. As
substantive test for validity. aptly put by the CA in the present case:
Batangas City's failure to prove the existence of The factual antecedents and legal issues in the
factual basis to justify the enactment of the present CA-G.R. CV No. 90373 are identical to
Assailed Ordinance had already been passed those of CA-G.R. CV Nos. 90324 and 90365. The
upon by the lower courts.1âwphi1 The Court assignment of errors in the present appeal are
quotes, with approval, the Joint Decision of the but a restatement of the errors raised in the two
CA Fourth Division: consolidated appeals cases, which errors have
already been exhaustively passed upon by the
To prohibit an act or to compel something to be
Court's Fourth Division in its Joint Decision dated
done, there must be a shown reason for the
May 28, 2009, weighing pieces of evidence that
same. The purpose must also be cogent to the
are now the very same pieces of evidence
means adopted by the law to attain it. In this
presented for consideration in this appeal. x x
case, as seen in the "whereas clause," the
x86 (Emphasis supplied)
purpose of the ordinance is to protect the
environment and prevent ecological imbalance, This Court, not being a trier of facts, accords the
especially the drying up of the aquifers of highest degree of respect to the findings of fact
Batangas City. In effect, the drying up of aquifers of the trial court, especially where, as here, they
is being blamed on the establishments and have been affirmed by the CA; accordingly, these
industries such as petitioners-appellees here. It findings will not be disturbed. To be sure, such
would have been acceptable had there been a findings are binding and conclusive upon this
specific study or findings that the local Court, 87 and it is not the Court's function in a
government conducted (sic) and not just its petition for review on certiorari to examine,
reliance on the complaints of some constituents evaluate or weigh anew the probative value of
who merely made its conclusion that the drying the evidence presented before the trial court. 88
up of wells or its salination was due to the "heavy While there are recognized exceptions to this
industries"' use of groundwater. rule, the Court finds that none is present in this
case.
In addition, if appellants were convinced that
those industries adversely affect the Consequently, since it has been established that
environment and specifically the water resource Batangas City did not have factual basis to justify
in Batangas City, there would be no exemptions, the purpose of the Assailed Ordinance, Batangas
as provided in Section 5 of the Ordinance, as it City cannot invoke the presumption of validity.
would negate the purpose of the Jaw. As held in Ermita-Ma/ate Hotel and Motel
Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of
Manila, 89 which Batangas City itself cites in its
Petition, the presumption of validity ascribed to
an ordinance prevails only in the absence of
some factual foundation of record sufficient to
overthrow the assailed issuance.90 In this case,
the presumption of validity ascribed to the
Assailed Ordinance had been overturned by
documentary and testimonial evidence showing
that no substantial diminution in the supply of
ground water in the TabangaoMalitam
watershed had occurred in the last three (3)
decades, and that no threat of depletion of
ground water resources in said watershed
existed.91
Final Note