UNIVERSAL ROBINA v LAGUNA LAKE

Antecedent Facts:

 Universal Robina is engaged in the manufacture of animal feeds in Bagong

Ilog, Pasig City.
 LLDA, in its laboratory analysis of UR’s corn oil refinery plants wastewater
found that it failed to comply with the government standards under DENR
Administrative orders.
 LLDA, after receiving a phone-complaint conducted another analysis which
showed its continued failure to conform to its effluent standards in terms of
Total Suspended Solids, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Color and
Oil/Grease.
 UR notified LLDA of its plan to upgrade the wastewater treatment facility of its
corn oil refinery plant in an effort to comply with environmental laws.
 A resampling was conducted again which showed that the plant finally
complied with the standards. Petitioner then requested for the reduction of
penalties.
 After hearing, the LLDA issued its Order to Pay with the amount of 1, 247,000
covering 932 days from initial sampling to re sampling and another 448 days
from when the re-sampling was done until April 17, 2007.
 Petitioner moved to reconsider, praying that it be ordered to pay only 560,000
pesos on grounds that the LLDA erred in first, adopting a straight computation
of the periods of violation based on the flawed assumption that petitioner was
operating on a daily basis − without excluding, among others, the period
during which the LLDA Laboratory underwent rehabilitation work.
 LLDA denied the petitioners’ move for reconsideration so it appealed to the
Court of Appeals. CA confirmed the orders of LLDA. The appellate court held
that while petitioner may have offered documentary evidence to support its
assertion that the days when it did not operate must be excluded from the
computation, the LLDA has the prerogative to disregard the same for being
unverified, hence, unreliable.
 The appellate court went on to chide petitioners petition for certiorari as
premature since the law provides for an appeal from decisions or orders of
the LLDA to the DENR Secretary or the Office of the President, a remedy
which should have first been exhausted before invoking judicial intervention.
 Petitioner cites deprivation of due process and lack of any plain, speedy or
adequate remedy as grounds which exempted it from complying with the rule
on exhaustion of administrative remedies.

ISSUES:

WON the appeal was proper.

RULING:

No, the appeal to the CA is not proper.

 The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a cornerstone of

our judicial system. The thrust of the rule is that courts must allow
administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their
 responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective
competence.
 EO 192, reorganizing the DENR, created the Pollution Adjudication Board
which adjudicates pollution cases, including the as arbitrator for
determining reparation, or restitution of the damages and losses resulting
from pollution.
 Petitioner had thus available administrative remedy of appeal to the DENR
Secretary. Its contrary arguments to show that an appeal to the DENR
Secretary would be an exercise in futility as the latter merely adopts the
LLDAs findings is at best, speculative and presumptuous.
 It is noted that during one of the hearings, the LLDA gave petitioner the
opportunity to submit within fifteen days.any valid documents to show
proof of its non-operating dates that would be necessary for the possible
reduction of the accumulated daily penalties, but petitioner failed to
comply therewith.