Republic of the Philippines v. N. Dela Merced & Sons. Inc. (FAITH) 3.
3. Thus, the EMB-NCR served a notice of violation (NOV) stating the charges
September 13, 2007 | Carpio, J. | Rights of the Accused
PETITIONER: Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Pollution
Adjudication Board
RESPONDENTS: N. Dela Merced & Sons, Inc.
SUMMARY: Dela Merced & Sons owned and operated the Guadalupe
Commercial Complex, which was subject to inspections by the DENR-PAB for
compliance with environmental laws. The inspection team found that Dela
Merced violated DENR AO No. 2004-26, Sec. 27 of RA 9275 and RA 8749.
Accordingly, a cease-and-desist order was issued on February 6, 2007.
Meanwhile, it was issued a Certificate of Non-Coverage on August 9, 2007 and
results of an effluent sampling, it has already conformed to the DENR’s
standards. The DENR-PAB issued a Notice of Technical Conference to Dela
Merced & Sons for a discussion of the imposition of fines during the period of
violation, from 12 October 2006 — when the collected effluent from the facility
failed the DENR Effluent Standards — to 13 November 2007 in the amount of
P3.98M. Dela Merced assails the said amount as unconstitutional for being
excessive.
The Supreme Court held that Dela Merced & Sons' invocation of Article III,
Section 19 (1) of the Constitution is erroneous since it applies only to criminal
prosecutions. This case involves an administrative proceeding and the fine
imposed is not a criminal penalty, hence, the constitutional proscription does not
apply.
DOCTRINE: For a penalty to be considered obnoxious to the Constitution, it
needs to be more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or
severe. To come under the prohibition, the penalty must be flagrantly and
plainly oppressive or so disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock
the moral sense of all reasonable persons as to what is right and proper under
the circumstances.
FACTS:
1. The Guadalupe Commercial Complex is a commercial building owned and
operated by Dela Merced & Sons, which operates a wet market and houses
eateries or kitchenettes in the same building.
2. On 13 July 2006, the Environmental Management Bureau-National Capital
Region (EMB-NCR) of the DENR inspected the Guadalupe Commercial
Complex. The inspection team found that Dela Merced & Sons had violated
DENR AO No. 2004-26 (for operating air pollution source installations
without permit to operate) and Sec. 27 of RA 9275 for operating a facility
that discharged regulated water pollutants without a discharge permit.
and ordering the latter to comply with the requirements.
4. On 11 October 2006, however, the EMB-NCR conducted another
inspection of the Guadalupe Commercial Complex to monitor Dela Merced
& Sons' compliance with R.A. 8749 (The Clean Air Act of 1999) and R.A.
9275, as well as their respective Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRRs). The results show that the sample collected failed to conform to the
DENR Effluent Standards.
5. On 6 February 2007, the DENR Secretary, upon the recommendation of the
EMB-NCR, issued a cease-and-desist order (CDO) to Dela Merced & Sons
for violation of R.A. 9275 and the IRR thereof.
6. Meanwhile, on 9 August 2007, the EMB-DENR issued a Certificate of
Non-Coverage (CNC) to Dela Merced & Sons pursuant to Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 1586 (Philippine Environmental Impact Statement
System).
7. Another effluent sampling was conducted. Subsequently, the results were
submitted to the EMB laboratory for analysis and verification. The findings
showed that the effluent conformed to the DENR Effluent Standards.
8. The DENR-PAB issued a Notice of Technical Conference to Dela Merced
& Sons for a discussion of the imposition of fines during the period of
violation of R.A. 9275. The notice included an initial computation of the
fine in the amount of P3.98M. The fine covered the alleged 398 days that
Dela Merced & Sons had violated R.A. 9275. The rate was P10,000 per day
of violation in accordance with Sec. 28 of the law. The period covered was
from 12 October 2006 — when the collected effluent from the facility failed
the DENR Effluent Standards — to 13 November 2007.
9. CA affirmed the orders of the DENR-PAB, but reduced the fine to 2.6M.
ISSUE: WoN the fine imposed Sec. 28 of RA 9275was unconstitutional for being
excessive – NO
RULING: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition in G.R. No. 201501 is
GRANTED, while that in G.R. No. 201658 is DENIED. The Ruling of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 107626 dated 30 June 2011 and its Resolution on 18
April 2012, are hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION as to the amount of
fine imposed.
RATIO:
1. At the outset, Dela Merced & Sons' invocation of Article III, Section 19 (1)
of the Constitution is erroneous. The constitutional prohibition on the
imposition of excessive fines applies only to criminal prosecutions. This
case involves an administrative proceeding and, contrary to the
supposition of Dela Merced & Sons, the fine imposed is not a criminal
penalty. Hence, the proscription under Article III, Section 19 is
inapplicable to this case.
2. Even if the Bill of Rights were applicable, the fines under R.A. 9275 still
cannot be classified as excessive. For a penalty to be considered
obnoxious to the Constitution, it needs to be more than merely being
harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or severe. To come under the
prohibition, the penalty must be flagrantly and plainly oppressive or so
disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense
of all reasonable persons as to what is right and proper under the
circumstances. Dela Merced & Sons’ unsubstantiated allegations are
not enough to strike down the fine as unconstitutional for being
excessive.