Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALEXANDRA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION v. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 170599 2010-09-22	PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE OF LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SM PRIME HOLDINGS PERALTA, J.
In the earlier case of The Alexandra Condominium Corporation v. Laguna Lake Development Authority,[25] this Court affirmed the ruling of the CA which sustained the LLDA's Order requiring the petitioner therein to pay a fine representing penalty for pollutive wastewater discharge. Although the petitioner in that case did not challenge the LLDA's authority to impose fine, the Court acknowledged the power of the LLDA to impose fines holding that under Section 4-A of RA 4850,[26] as amended, the LLDA is entitled to compensation for damages resulting from failure to meet established water and effluent standards. Section 4-A provides, thus: Sec. 4-A. Compensation for damages to the water and aquatic resources of Laguna de Bay and its tributaries resulting from failure to meet established water and effluent quality standards and from such other wrongful act or omission of a person, private or public, juridical or otherwise, punishable under the law shall be awarded to the Authority to be earmarked for water quality control management.
	GR No. 179918 2010-09-08	SHELL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION B.V. v. EFREN JALOS ABAD, J.
Jalos, et al had, therefore, an administrative recourse before filing their complaint with the regular courts.[17] The laws creating the PAB and vesting it with powers are wise. The definition of the term "pollution" itself connotes the need for specialized knowledge and skills, technical and scientific, in determining the presence, the cause, and the effects of pollution. These knowledge and skills are not within the competence of ordinary courts.[18] Consequently, resort must first be made to the PAB, which is the agency possessed of expertise in determining pollution-related matters.
	GR No. 165299 2009-12-18	PACIFIC STEAM LAUNDRY v. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CARPIO, J.
Thus, in the recent case of The Alexandra Condominium Corporation v. Laguna Lake Development Authority,[26] the Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals which sustained LLDA's Order, requiring petitioner therein to pay a fine of P1,062,000 representing penalty for pollutive wastewater discharge. Although petitioner in that case did not challenge LLDA's authority to impose fine, the Court acknowledged the power of LLDA to impose fines, holding that under Section 4-A of RA 4850, as amended, LLDA is entitled to compensation for damages resulting from failure to meet established water and effluent standards. Section 4-A of RA 4850, as amended, reads: SEC. 4-A. Compensation for damages to the water and aquatic resources of Laguna de Bay and its tributaries resulting from failure to meet established water and effluent quality standards or from such other wrongful act or omission of a person, private or public, juridical or otherwise, punishable under the law shall be awarded to the Authority to be earmarked for water quality control and management.
	GR No. 178158 2009-12-04	STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RADSTOCK SECURITIES LIMITED CARPIO, J.
x x x x[8] (Emphasis supplied)