GR 94759; (January, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 94759 ; January 21, 1991
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. NARCISO T. ATIENZA as Presiding Judge, Bulacan, RTC, and HON. VICENTE CRUZ, Acting Mayor and the MUNICIPALITY OF STA. MARIA, BULACAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Technology Developers, Inc., a corporation engaged in manufacturing charcoal briquettes in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, received a letter dated February 16, 1989, from respondent Acting Mayor Pablo N. Cruz ordering the full cessation of its plant’s operations. The mayor cited pollution concerns and requested the presentation of several permits, including a building permit, mayor’s permit, and an anti-pollution permit from the DENR. Petitioner undertook to comply but, while processing the necessary documents, its plant was padlocked on April 6, 1989, without prior notice, effectively stopping its operations.
Petitioner filed an action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Regional Trial Court, which initially granted a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction upon a bond, ordering the mayor to allow resumption of business. However, upon the mayor’s motion for reconsideration, the trial court reassessed the evidence, which included an investigation report concluding the plant’s fumes were hazardous and petitions from complaining residents. Consequently, the trial court dissolved the writ. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dissolution, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court’s order dissolving the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The issuance, recall, or dissolution of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its action will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion. The trial court’s dissolution was justified based on the evidence presented by the mayor, which established a factual basis for the closure order.
The evidence included an official investigation report finding that the plant’s fumes, containing hazardous particulate matter, directly affected surrounding houses due to the lack of a proper anti-pollution device. Furthermore, petitioner failed to present a valid building permit from the Municipality of Sta. Maria and was operating with an expired temporary pollution control permit. While petitioner highlighted its substantial investment and the plant’s role as a dollar-earning industry, the Court emphasized that the paramount need to protect public health and the environment from pollution legitimately exercises the local executive’s police power. Thus, the appellate court correctly upheld the trial court’s discretionary dissolution of the injunction. The petition was denied.