G.R. No. 202897, August 6, 2019
Facts:
On April 2, 2009, the Regional Office of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Environmental Management Bureau-Region III (EMB-RIII) filed a complaint before the DENR’s Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) charging MWSS and its concessionaires, Maynilad and Manila Water, with failure to provide, install, operate, and maintain adequate Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTFs) for sewerage system resulting in the degraded quality and beneficial use of the receiving bodies of water leading to Manila Bay, and which has directly forestalled the DENR’s mandate to implement the operational plan for the rehabilitation and restoration of Manila Bay and its river tributaries. The Regional Directors of the DENR EMB-National Capital Region (NCR) and Region VI-A (RVI-A) also instituted their complaints before the PAB
The SENR issued a Notice of Violation (NOV). The NOV determined petitioners’ violation of Section 8 of the Clean Water Act, in that they have not provided, installed, or maintained sufficient WWTFs and sewerage connections satisfactory enough in quantity to meet the standards and objectives of the law, notwithstanding court orders and the lapse of the five-year period provided by the Clean Water Act.
MWSS led the defense and averred that they were compliant with the law. Maynilad and Manila Water also asserted the supremacy of the Concession Agreements (Agreement/s) executed with MWSS containing service targets for water supply, sewerage, and sanitation within specific milestone periods spread over the twenty-five-year concession period. They sought refuge under Section 7 of the Clean Water Act which first requires the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to prepare and effect a national program on sewerage and septage management to guide the MWSS and/or its concessionaries in implementing the law.
The SENR ruled that the Clean Water Act, specifically, the provisions on the five-year period to connect the existing sewage lines, is mandatory, and the refusal of petitioners’ customers to connect to a sewage line is irrelevant to Section 8 of the law. The SENR further stated that the petitioner’s failure to provide a centralized sewerage system and connect all sewage lines is a continuing unmitigated environmental pollution resulting in the release and discharge of untreated water into various water areas and Manila Bay.
In one of the cases, the Court of Appeals dismissed Manila Water’s petition. It found in the main that, applying verba legis, Section 8 of the Clean Water Act is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, in requiring Manila Water to connect the existing sewage lines in its service area to sewerage systems ready for and already in use within five years from the effectivity of the law.
MWSS insists it did not violate the law. Manila Water is steadfast in its position that it did not violate Section 8 of the Clean Water Act, as Section 7, in relation to Section 8, of the Clean Water Act partakes of a condition precedent to Manila Water’s fulfillment of its obligations thereunder.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners violated Section 8 of the Clean Water Act.
Ruling:
Yes, Maynilad and Manila Water violated Section 8 of the Clean water act. The Clean Water Act requires water utility companies to provide for sewerage and septage management services within five years of the law‘s passage. This sewerage or septage management services requirement is the bone of contention in these cases. In the present case, Maynilad and Manila Water’s own assertions, of its compliance with Section 8 of the law are dismal at best. Given that a decade has already passed following the effectivity of the Clean Water Act, both concessionaires’ compliance with Section 8 this current year does not even reach 20% sewerage coverage.
Also, laboring under the Public Trust Doctrine construes the MOA between MWSS and Maynilad and the MOA between MWSS and Manila Water as a complicit acknowledgment of the obstinate defiance of their mandate under the Clean Water Act. Agreeing among themselves for a 15-year extension will not cancel their long-running liability under Section 8 of the Clean Water Act, in relation to Section 28 under the same law. A private contract cannot promote business convenience to the unwarranted disadvantage of public welfare and trust.
Hence, the petitioners violated the Clean Water Act.
Real LexEcon 