|
THE
Court of Appeals (CA) has granted the petition filed by
Dole Philippines to issue a temporary restraining order
enjoining the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources-Pollution Adjudication Board (DENR-PAB) from
implementing its cease-and-desist order (CDO) on the
company’s fruit processing and canning plant in Surallah,
South Cotabato.
In a
12-page decision penned by Associate Justice Mariflor
Punzalan Castillo, the CA’s Third Division issued the
TRO on condition that it would post a bond of P1
million.
The
DENR-PAB’s CDO issued on July 24, 2007 ordered Dole to
stop operating its equipment believed to be generating
pollution until it secures the required permits from the
DENR’s Region 12 office.
“First,
there is no question in our minds that petitioner has
sufficiently shown the urgent necessity for the issuance
of a temporary restraining order. If the CDO were to be
enforced and petitioner were to be prevented from
operating, great and irreparable damage may be caused
and tremendous economic losses might be incurred not
only by petitioner but by its more than 700 employees
who depend upon it for livelihood,” the CA said.
The CA
noted that Dole, since it assumed ownership of the
subject plant in 2006, has been approaching the DENR’s
regional office with regard to its lack of permits and
had asked for three years within which to comply with
the requirements under Philippine law.
It
stressed that based on the records, the DENR-PAB
regional office failed to act on such request, prompting
the petitioner to continue rehabilitating the plant.
The case
started on August 14, 2004, when the DENR inspected the
plant operated by the T’boli Agro Development Inc. (Tadi),
and discovered that it had been continuously operating
its Wastewater Treatment Facility (WTF) without a valid
discharge permit since April 27, 2001; and its Air
Pollution Source Installations was without a permit to
operate since April 17, 1999.
On
August 31, 2004, the DENR informed Tadi of its
violations and ordered it to apply for the renewal of
the necessary permits, submit a self-monitoring report
from 2001 to the present, apply for a change in
ownership in the environmental clearance certificate (ECC),
pay all penalties and appoint a qualified full-time
pollution-control officer.
However,
out of these commitments, Tadi was only able to apply
for a change of ownership.
On
January 12, 2006, a certain Mrs. Yolanda Bulacer
complained to the regional office about the odorous
wastewater coming from the concrete wall of the plant.
The
DENR’s Central Mindanao office inspected the site, and
traced the cause of the offensive smell to wastewater
flowing through holes in the concrete wall of the plant.
On May
19, 2006, Dole acquired the plant from Tadi through a
public bidding pursuant to a court-approved
rehabilitation plan for the latter.
After a
year, the DENR regional office sent a notice of
violation to Dole, saying it violated ECC conditions and
provisions of Presidential Decree 984 Pollution Control
Law and Republic Act 8749 or the Clean Water Act.
The DENR
discovered that Tadi’s previous violations have yet to
be remedied.
In
response, Dole wrote the DENR and asked for three years
to complete its rehabilitation of the plan and set up an
environmental system. Dole also asked the DENR that it
be absolved of the fines and penalties imposed, as the
violations were largely owing to the neglect of the
plant’s previous owners.
On July 24, 2007, the DENR secretary issued a cease and
desist order enjoining Dole from further operating its
Surallah plant.
The firm
later filed a motion for the issuance of a temporary
lifting order with the DENR-PAB.
The PAB
then issued a temporary lifting order that same day and
gave Dole 45 days to secure the necessary permits.
On
August 21, 2007, Dole filed a motion for reconsideration
and a motion to lift the CDO on the ground that it was
issued without legal basis and in violation of the
constitutional right to due process of the company and
its employees.
The
motions were, however, later denied by the PAB, forcing
Dole to elevate the case to the appellate court. |
