G.R. No. 202897 , 206823 & 207969, July 19, 2022
MAYNILAD WATER SERVICES, INC., MANILA WATER COMPANY, INC., and METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM, Petitioners, vs. THE SECRETARY OF THE DENR, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Maynilad, Manila Water, and MWSS sought reconsideration of the Court’s August 6, 2019 Decision, which affirmed with modifications the rulings of the Court of Appeals. The Decision found them liable for massive fines for violating Section 8 of the Philippine Clean Water Act ( Republic Act No. 9275 ). Section 8 mandates that “sewage lines” from establishments and households be connected to an “available sewerage system” within five years from the law’s effectivity, which lapsed on May 7, 2009. The petitioners were found to have failed to complete this mandatory connection, leading to the imposition of daily fines.
In their motions, petitioners argued for a holistic interpretation of the Clean Water Act, contending that the five-year period was merely directory for initiating connections, not an absolute deadline for full compliance. They invoked the Court’s 2011 Manila Bay ruling, which set a 2037 deadline for sewerage system compliance, arguing it was res judicata. They also claimed the fines were excessive, confiscatory, and unconstitutional, violating due process and amounting to an ex post facto law or bill of attainder. MWSS separately argued it had limited jurisdiction under its Concession Agreements and that solidary liability with its concessionaires was erroneous.

ISSUE

The core issue for reconsideration was whether the Court correctly interpreted Section 8 of the Clean Water Act as imposing a strict, mandatory five-year deadline for connecting sewage lines to sewerage systems, thereby justifying the imposition of fines for non-compliance by the deadline.

RULING

The Court DENIED the motions for reconsideration and upheld its prior Decision. The legal logic centered on statutory construction. The Court applied the verba legis principle, holding that the plain, clear, and unequivocal language of Section 8 imposes a mandatory, not directory, obligation. The law states connections “shall be made” within five years, creating an imperative duty. The holistic interpretation urged by petitioners would render this specific deadline nugatory and contravene the law’s clear intent to address water pollution urgently.
The Court rejected the claim that the Manila Bay case was res judicata, clarifying that the 2037 deadline in that case pertained to the construction and rehabilitation of sewage treatment facilities, a distinct obligation under Section 8. The five-year connection deadline remains a separate, non-negotiable mandate. The argument that fines under Section 28 require actual pollution was also dismissed; the violation of Section 8’s connection mandate is itself a finable offense to compel compliance with the law’s preventive framework. The fines, calculated as prescribed by law, were not deemed confiscatory but a lawful exercise of the state’s police power to protect public health and the environment. The solidary liability of MWSS and its concessionaires was sustained based on their collective statutory duty under the law.