Pollution Adjudication Board v.

Court of Appeals and

Solar Textile Finishing Corporation

G.R. No. 93891, March 11, 1991

FELICIANO, J.:

FACTS:

Solar Textile Finishing Corp. is a corporation engaged in bleaching, rinsing and dyeing textiles
which was issued a cease and desist order from discharging untreated wastewater directly to the
Tullahan-Tinejeros River by the Pollution Adjudication Board through its Chairman Fulgencio
Factoran, Jr. Such order was based on the examination done by the Board which shows that 80%
of the untreated wastewater of the corporation was directly discharged to the river which is
highly pollutive. This order was based on the power of the Board pursuant to Sec. 7 of PD 984
and Sec.38 of its IRR.

Solar received the order on Sept. 26, 1988 and the Writ of execution on March 31, 1989. Solar
also filed a Motion for Reconsideration/ Appeal with the board and the board issued an order
allowing Solar to temporarily operate in order to conduct another examination.

Solar filed a petition for Certiorari before the RTC of Quezon City which was later on dismissed
on the ground that appeal and not certiorari is the proper remedy. The writ of execution was also
rendered valid by the RTC.

Solar appealed before the Court of Appeals which reversed the ruling of the lower court
upholding the validity of the order and the writ.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD CAN ISSUE AN EX PARTE CEASE AND DESIST
ORDER BASED ON A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled that the Board can issue an ex parte cease and desist order considering
that it is permitted by law and regulations because stopping the continuous discharge of pollutive
and untreated effluents into the rivers and other inland waters of the Philippines cannot be made
to wait until protracted litigation over the ultimate correctness or propriety of such orders has run
its full course. The Court ruled that these laws were done in the exercise of the States police
power.

It was the contention of Solar that the Board can only issue an ex parte cease and desist order
when the discharge will pose an immediate threat to life, public, health, safety or welfare, or to
animal and plant life but the Court ruled that the Board need not to prove that there is an
immediate threat. The Court also ruled that the issuance of an order only requires a prima facie
evidence.

The Court also ruled that when an establishment contests the cease and desist order, the Board
must hold a public hearing to determine whether the prima facie evidence is correct or not. If the
Board renders a decision against the establishment, the remedy of the establishment is to file an
appeal before the Court of Appeals.