MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court has upheld the P1.25-million fine on Universal Robina Corp. (URC) imposed by the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) and the Court of Appeals after its corn refinery plant was found to have polluted Pasig River with its wastewater.
The high tribunal’s Third Division dismissed URC’s petition for review on certiorari, which questioned the period of violation, which served as the LLDA’s basis in the computing the amount of penalty.
The LLDA based the fine on the total of 1,247 days that URC’s plant in Bagong Ilog, Pasig City, discharged polluted wastewater in the Pasig River, which amounted to P1.247 million worth of daily penalties.
The decision, penned by retiring Senior Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, said that the LLDA was correct in considering the two periods within which the URC plant was discharging polluted wastewater.
These were from March 14, 2000 to November 3, 2003 and from March 15, 2006 and April 17, 2007.
The Court said the LLDA was correct in imposing the penalty under an agency resolution, which set a penalty for prohibitive acts of not more than P1,000 for each day of violation or imprisonment of from two to six years or both fine and imprisonment.
Morever, the Court also noted that URC appealed the LLDA’s decision before the Court of Appeals instead of exhausting the administrative remedies such as elevating it to the Environment Secretary.
URC had asked for a reduction of the penalties to 560 days or an equivalent of P560,000, claiming that the LLDA made a mistake in its adoption of straight computation of periods of violation.
The LLDA’s Pollution Control Division conducted a laboratory analysis in March 2000, which determined that URC’s corn refinery plant’s wastewater failed to comply with government standards.
“While belaboring petitioner’s assertions, it must be underscored that the protection of the environment, including bodies of water, is no less urgent or vital than the pressing concerns of private enterprises, big or small. Everyone must do their share to conserve the national patrimony’s meager resources for the benefit of not only this generation, but of those to follow,” the Court said.
It added: “The length of time alone it took petitioner to upgrade its (water treatment facility, from 2003 to 2007), a move arrived at only under threat of continuing sanctions, militates against any genuine concern for the well-being of the country’s waterways.”