Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 179267 2013-06-25	JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The grant of a TPO ex parte cannot, therefore, be challenged as violative of the right to due process. Just like a writ of preliminary attachment which is issued without notice and hearing because the time in which the hearing will take could be enough to enable the defendant to abscond or dispose of his property,[102] in the same way, the victim of VAWC may already have suffered harrowing experiences in the hands of her tormentor, and possibly even death, if notice and hearing were required before such acts could be prevented. It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary requirements of procedural due process must yield to the necessities of protecting vital public interests,[103] among which is protection of women and children from violence and threats to their personal safety and security.
	GR No. 170599 2010-09-22	PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE OF LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SM PRIME HOLDINGS PERALTA, J.
In Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA,[27] this Court had occasion to discuss the functions of the LLDA, thus: x x x It must be recognized in this regard that the LLDA, as a specialized administrative agency, is specifically mandated under Republic Act No. 4850 and its amendatory laws [PD 813 and EO 927], to carry out and make effective the declared national policy of promoting and accelerating the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding Provinces of Rizal and Laguna and the cities of San Pablo, Manila, Pasay, Quezon and Caloocan with due regard and adequate provisions for environmental management and control, preservation of the quality of human life and ecological systems, and the prevention of undue ecological disturbances, deterioration and pollution. Under such a broad grant of power and authority, the LLDA, by virtue of its special charter, obviously has the responsibility to protect the inhabitants of the Laguna Lake Region from the deleterious effects of pollutants emanating from the discharge of wastes from the surrounding areas. x x x[28]
	GR No. 165299 2009-12-18	PACIFIC STEAM LAUNDRY v. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CARPIO, J.
Thus, in Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of Appeals,[25] the Court held that the adjudication of pollution cases generally pertains to the Pollution Adjudication Board, except where a special law, such as the LLDA Charter, provides for another forum. Indeed, even PD 984 authorizes the LLDA to undertake pollution control activities within LLDA's development area. Section 10 of PD 984 provides: SEC. 10. Jurisdiction. - The Commission [NPCC] shall have no jurisdiction over waterworks or sewage system operated by the Metropolitan Waterworks Sewerage System, but the rules and regulations issued by the Commission for the protection and prevention of pollution under the authority herein granted shall supersede and prevail over any rules or regulations as may heretofore have been issued by other government agencies or instrumentalities on the same subject.
	GR No. 137862 2004-11-11	ALFREDO ESTRADA v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. Court of Appeals,[33] we also pronounced that:The matter of determining whether there is…pollution of the environment that requires control, if not prohibition, of the operation of a business establishment is essentially addressed to the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the DENR which, by virtue of Section 16 of Executive Order No. 192, series of 1987 has assumed the powers and functions of the defunct National Pollution Control Commission created under Republic Act No. 3931. Under said Executive Order, a Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) under the Office of the DENR Secretary now assumes the powers and functions of the National Pollution Control Commission with respect to adjudication of pollution cases.