GR 215029; (July, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 215029 , July 5, 2017
Summit One Condominium Corporation vs. Pollution Adjudication Board and Environmental Management Bureau – National Capital Region
FACTS
Petitioner Summit One Condominium Corporation (SOCC) was inspected by respondent Environmental Management Bureau – National Capital Region (EMB-NCR) on March 11, 2010. A “grab sample” from SOCC’s sewage treatment plant was analyzed and found to have violated effluent standards under R.A. No. 9275 (Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004) on four parameters. EMB-NCR issued a Notice of Violation. SOCC engaged a private company, Milestone, which conducted tests showing compliance by March 17, 2010. EMB-NCR’s own later test in December 2010 also indicated compliance.
Despite the subsequent compliance, the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), in a September 20, 2012 Order, imposed a fine of PhP 2,790,000 on SOCC for the initial violation. SOCC’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the PAB’s orders. SOCC filed this petition, arguing the fine was erroneous because the “grab sample” was unreliable, subsequent tests showed compliance, and the fine was arbitrary and violated due process.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the factual findings of the PAB and the imposition of the fine against SOCC.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The appeal was taken under Rule 45, which allows review only of questions of law. The core issue raised by SOCC—whether it violated the effluent standards and whether the fine was proper—is fundamentally a question of fact. The Court is not a trier of facts and generally defers to the factual findings of lower tribunals, especially specialized administrative agencies like the PAB and EMB-NCR, which possess technical expertise on environmental matters.
The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from this rule, as none of the established exceptions to the conclusiveness of factual findings were present. The PAB’s determination that a violation occurred based on the initial inspection and laboratory results, and its consequent imposition of the administrative fine, were within its adjudicatory powers. The arguments regarding the testing methodology, the delay in furnishing results, and the mitigating effect of subsequent compliance all pertain to the weight and evaluation of evidence, which are factual inquiries beyond the scope of a Rule 45 petition. The petition, therefore, raised no reversible error of law.