Universal Robina Corp. (Corn Division) vs. Laguna Lake Developement AuthorityG.R. No. 191427. May 30, 2011

Facts: Respondent, Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA), through its Pollution

Control Division – Monitoring and Enforcement Section, conducted a laboratory analysis on March 14, 2000, of petitioner’s (URC) corn oil refinery plant’s wastewater, found that it failed to comply with government standards provided under Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Orders (DAOs) Nos. 34 and 35, series of 1990. Another laboratory analysis was conducted on August 31, 2000, which showed a continued failure to conform to its effluent standard in terms of Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Color and Oil/Grease.

On May 9, 2007 on petitioner’s request, a re-sampling of wastewater was conducted which showed that petitioner’s plant finally complied with government standards. After conducting hearings, the LLDA issued its Order to Pay (OP) (PHP 1,247,000.00) dated January 21, 2008 for discharging pollutive waterwaste. Petitioner moved to reconsider, however LLDA denied Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and reiterated its order to pay the penalties. Petitioner challenged by certiorari the orders before the Court of Appeals. The Appellate Court went on to chide petitioner’s 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 be exhausted before invoking judicial intervention.

Issue:Whether or not petitioner was deprived of due process and lack of any plain, speedy or

adequate remedy as ground, which exempted it from complying with the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Rulings: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not deprived of due process.

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. The rationale for this doctrine is obvious. It entails lesser expenses and provides for the speedier resolution of controversies. Comity and convenience also impel courts of justice to shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed. 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 LLDA’s findings is at best, speculative and presumptuous.

The essence of due process is simply to be heard or an oppurtunity to explain one’s side or oppurtunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Adminitrative due process cannot fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense for it is enough that the party is given the chance to be heard before the case against him be decided.