People v.

Dela Merced & Sons

January 22, 2018
Topic in the Syllabus: Lis Mota
Facts:
The petitioner, Dela Merced & Sons, the operator and owner of Gaudalupe Commercial
Center located alongside the Pasig River filed a review for certiorari on the decision of the Court
of Appeals. The petition rooted when the Environmental Management Bureau – National Capital
Region (EMB-NCR) of the DENR conducted an inspection on July 13, 2006 which found out
that the petitioner violated Section 1 of DENR Administrative Order No. 2004-26 for operating
air pollution source installations (generator set) without a permit to operate and Section 27 (i) of
R.A. 9275 for operating a facility that discharged regulated water pollutants without a discharge
permit.
On August 28 2006, the EMB-NCR issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to the petitioner
and was obliged to comply with the requirements given. The petitioner requested for an
extension to comply but it nevertheless did.
On October 2006, the EMB-NCR conducted another inspection to see if the petitioner
complies with the Clean Air Acts (1999 and 2004) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRRs). Unfortunately, having collected effluent sample from the facility, and the results of the
laboratory tests showed that the sample collected failed to conform to the DENR Effluent
Standards. The petitioner received a cease and desist order on July and was informed that there
would be no temporary lifting order (TLO) unless they will submit documents required by the
law. The EMB-NCR went to the said establishment whereby sealing the kitchen sinks which
were believed to be the source of wastewater.
Later on, the petitioner submitted the required documents, asked for a Motion of
Reconsideration and was given TLO by the DENR.
On November 14, 2007, another effluent sampling was conducted and the results showed
that the petitioner’s establishment has already conformed to the DENR Effluent Standards.
Wherefore, the computation for the fine (Php 3.98 million starting from July 7 2007-November
13, 2007) violated by the petitioner was done which the latter had protested for being excessive.
The CA reduced the fine imposed by the DENR to Php 2.67 million and denying the petition for
review of the petitioner. Both the petitioner and the DENR prayed to the SC for Review for
Certiorari wherein the former assails the downgrade of the fine and latter assailing the
constitutionality of the RA 9275.

Issue:
Whether Sec. 28 of R.A. 9275 on the imposition of fines is unconstitutional under
Section 19 (1), Article III of the Constitution for being excessive?
Ruling:
No, the Court ruled in the negative. The Court ruled that the question for constitutionality
of the said law was not properly presented and the contention for the fine being excessive is
misplaced because the provision and prohibition of Sec. 19 (1), Art. 3 of the Constitution is just
for criminal prosecutions. Wherefore, it was held that the abovesaid contention is not the lis
mota of the case.