Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Judicial Region 5
Branch No. 1234
Bulacan City
OUR LADY OF PEACE INSTIUTE (OLPI),
Petitioner,
Civil
23456
-versus-

Case

No.

01-

For: Writ of Continuing

Mandamus with Prayer
for TEPO and Damages
with Attorneys Fees

TIRE RECYCLERS INCORPORATED (TRI),

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND NATIONAL RESOURCES (DENR),
Respondents,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PETITION FOR CONTINUING MANDAMUS WITH PRAYER FOR THE

ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ORDER (TEPO)

PETITIONER OUR LADY OF PEACE INSTITUTE (Petitioner)

represented by its president Juan de la Cruz, by their undersigned
counsel, unto this Honorable Court most respectfully alleges that: State
that this is an envi complaint

Nature of the Petition

This is a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Continuing

Mandamus with prayer for Temporary Environmental Protective Order
filed with this Honorable Court pursuant to Rule 8 of A.M. No. 09-6-8SC, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases, concerning as it is the violation of the constitutional rights of
the residents of the Municipality of Angat, Bulacan to a balanced and
healthful ecology, the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999, and the
Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004.

I. The Parties

1. Petitioner is a religious institution composed of lay professed

persons who are mostly of age with principal address at 1513
Sampaloc Street, municipality of Angat, Bulacan, where it may be
served with summons, notices and other process of this Honorable
Court.
2. RESPONDENT TIRE RECYCLERS INCORPORATED (TRI) is a
Philippine Company involved with recycling tires for the production of
oil extracted from melted tires with address at 666 Mausok Street,
municipality of Angat, Bulacan, where it may be served with summons,
notices and other process of this Honorable court.
3. RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND
NATURAL RESOURCES ("DENR") is a government agency whose mission
is to address the dynamic requirements of the environment and natural
resources sector with address at 199 Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon
City.

II. Allegations Common to All Causes of Action

4. On August 23, 2005, due to health hazards in the city,

Petitioner relocated in Angat, Bulacan from their original house in
Novaliches in order to be away from the pollution, noise and
distractions of the city.
5. Petitioner ever since the relocation found peace from the area
and its members would often go out walking in the morning for
exercise as the clean province air was beneficial to their health.
6. However, around 3 years later, September 1, 2008, TRI
opened its tire recycling facility within the area and immediately
started its operation of melting tires using the method of pyrolysis.
7. Immediately after, the Petitioner along with their community
sensed a major change in their environment, particularly in the quality
of the air.
8. Ever since the facility opened, the Petitioners members were
not able to go on their morning walks anymore due to the foul odour
that they smelled every time they went outside. Further a lot of
members of the community, including children, started developing
signs of health deterioration including cases of severe coughing,
wheezing, chest tightness and shortness of breath.
9. Members of the Petitioner and neighbours affected
immediately went to their respective doctors for consultation and
treatment of their ailments. All of the doctors diagnosed their patients
with skin irritation, asthma, and dizziness (Exhibit 1-40) and explained
that consistent exposure to toxic smokes and air pollution is a cause
for said illnesses.
10. On September 6, 2008, Petitioner then started searching the
cause of the foul odour which polluted their air and was able to trace it
from the fumes that were coming from TRIs tire recycling facility.
11. On September 8, 2008, upon investigation of the Petitioner, it
found out that the cause of the fumes coming out of the facility was
due to the out-dated technology that TRI was using in conducting its

pyrolysis which could not adequately mitigate the air pollution that it
produces.
12. On September 9, 2008, Petitioner complained to the
Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of DENR.
13. On September 12, 2008, EMB conducted its own ocular
inspections and investigations. Its inspection or monitoring report
(Exhibit 41) showed that TRIs facility was in violation of the Clean Air
Act. Further, it was also able to discover that toxic waste has
accumulated within their area. EMB then subsequently issued a Cease
and Desist Order and a permanent closure order against TRI (Exhibit
42).
14. Despite the orders issued by DENR, TRI is still continuing to
operate up to date.
15. The continued operations of TRIs facility led to the recurring
sickness, worsening health conditions and frequent hospitalization of
the Petitioners members.
16. Due to the alarming presence of toxic smokes and wastes in
the community, Petitioner institutes this legal action against TRI with
regard to its continued operations and DENR for its malicious
negligence for enforcing the Cease and desist order.

III. First Cause of Action

17. Petitioner repleads and incorporates, by reference, the

foregoing allegations and, in support of its first cause of action,
respectfully states:
18. That at TRIs present rate of air pollution and improper toxic
waste disposal, i.e. approximately 20 gallons of hazardous waste,
contaminated water, and toxic char as per EMBs inspection and
monitoring report (Exhibit 41), the Petitioners members will be
displaced from their homes at the end of this ensuing decade as they
will essentially be forced to relocate to another community adequate
for their sickly and vulnerable conditions.
19. The adverse effects, serious injury and irreparable damage of

this continued trend of pollution to the Petitioners members are

evident
and
incontrovertible.
Petitioners
members
health
deterioration is supported by scientific studies and research which
have revealed that health risks are increased with prolonged exposure
to tire pyrolysis emissions. Adverse health effects observed in similar
communities were: respiratory problems such as chest congestion,
difficulty in breathing, excessive phlegm, coughs, and colds, to skin
allergies and eye irritation, as well as dizziness and stomach pains.
20. Moreover, the continued operations of TRI constitute an
impairment of the natural resources of the community of Angat. The
amount of toxicity present in the soil surrounding TRIs plant has led to
the staggered growth, and at times the death, of trees and plants. The
toxic wastes and chars have also contaminated the nearby stream,
affecting farther soils and especially fisheries and other aquatic
resources.
21. Petitioners have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced
and healthful ecology as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution and are
entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as the parens patriae.
22. The fact that Petitioner cannot freely move around the
community and go about their everyday routines and activities without
exposing themselves to health risks and frequent visits to the hospital
is a clear deprivation of this right.
23. Moreover, part and parcel to the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
environment. It is evident that the continued failure and refusal by TRI
to cease and desist operations is an act violative of the rights of
Petitioner as its adverse health effects are no long speculative but are
actually manifest. TRI is consistently and maliciously evading its said
duty to the environment and the Petitioner alike.

IV. Second Cause of Action

24. Petitioner repleads and incorporates, by reference, the

foregoing allegations and, in support of its second cause of action,
respectfully states:

25. That TRIs tire pyrolysis operations emit harmful air

pollutants, approximately 500-600 mg/Ncm as per EMBs air quality
monitoring report. This amount of particulates is 200-300 mg/Ncm in
excess of what is allowed by law to be emitted by stationary sources.

26. The Petitioner was not apprised of the undue harmful

emissions, even more so the exponential increase in such. They
noticed such merely through the obnoxious odor originating from TRIs
plant and the increase in their respiratory illnesses as
abovementioned.

26. Thus, TRI manifestly violated the Philippine Clean Air Act of
1999 through its unwarranted toxic emissions. EMB confirmed said
violation when it conducted investigations and issued inspection or
monitoring reports. It resolved Petitioners complaint favorably
declaring such violation and ordering it to cease and desist operations.

27. Other than the failure to comply with the standards set by
the law, TRIs acts are also in violation of their rights as enumerated by
said law, i.e. (a) The right to breathe clean air, and (b) the right to be
informed of the nature and extent of the potential hazard of any
activity, undertaking or project and to be served timely notice of any
significant rise in the level of pollution and the accidental or deliberate
release into the atmosphere of harmful or hazardous substances.

28. As a form of financial liability and also in pursuant to TRIs

Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), it is its duty to put up
financial guarantee mechanisms to finance the needs for the clean-up
rehabilitation of the community.

IV. Third Cause of Action

29. Petitioner repleads and incorporates, by reference, the

foregoing allegations and, in support of its third cause of action,
respectfully states:

30. That TRIs facility is located near a stream that is used by the
residents of Angat for recreational purposes and water supply.

31. TRIs procedure of conducting pyrolysis leaves residue

substances called the char and other toxic substances which if
improperly disposed, could cause the pollution of waterways and
grounds.

32. Upon investigation of the EMB, it was discovered that TRIs

facility was not following the proper standards in properly disposing of
its waste residues in its area and was negligently dumping them on the
ground without the proper protection to prevent seepage to waterways
or pollution of the ground.

33. TRIs facility still continued to run and negligently dump the
waste that it produced despite the order of EMB to cease and desist
from further operating.

34. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that TRIs facility

operations is in violation of Republic Act No. 9275 An Act Providing for
a Comprehensive Water Quality Management and for Other Purposes

35. Though there has still no clear evidence that the nearby
stream has been polluted, applying the precautionary principle, TRI
must therefore stop from further dumping its waste on the ground and
has the responsibility to contain, remove and clean-up its area of toxic
waste materials at its own expense before it could actually pollute the
nearby stream that is used by the community.

IV. Fourth Cause of Action

36. Petitioner repleads and incorporates, by reference, the

foregoing allegations and, in support of its fourth cause of action,
respectfully states:

37. That DENR has already issued a Cease and Desist Order and
a permanent closure order against TRI which is supposed to be
immediately executory. However, almost six years has already past
since the issuance and the order has yet to be properly enforced.

38. That there was no showing that TRI filed any motion to lift
the order to contest the Cease and Desist Order issued by DENR.
Though assuming that they did, the filing of such a motion shall not
stay the enforcement and execution of the order.

39. DENR through its duly authorized representative has the

legal duty to implement or cause the implementation of the order no
later than seventy-two hours.

40. The unexplained and unreasonably long inaction of the DENR

in conducting its duty of enforcement clearly manifests that it has
maliciously neglected its duties and should likewise be responsible for
the damages suffered by the Petitioners members and the community.

41. That Petitioner has no other plain, speedy, or adequate

remedy in the ordinary course of law to determine the questions of
unique national and local importance raised here that pertain to laws
and rules for environmental protection, thus it is justified in coming
directly to this Court. Further, where there is already unreasonable
delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the
complainant, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
may be no longer be complied with.

42. Given that the health of the entire community is at jeopardy,

there is extreme urgency that necessitates the granting of this court of
a writ of Continuing Mandamus against DENR for the closure of the TRI
Facility or issuance of TEPO that would put to balance between the life
and death of the petitioner or present grave or irreparable damage to
environment.

III. Fifth Cause of Action

43. Petitioner repleads and incorporates, by reference, the

foregoing allegations and, in support of its fifth cause of action,
respectfully states:

44. That given the nature of TRIs project of recycling tires

through pyrolysis poses a significant impact to the environment, it is

required to obtain an ECC and thereafter comply with its terms and
conditions.

45. TRIs hazardous emissions and improper dumping practices

can be classified as one that had significantly made an impact on the
environment which clearly constitutes as a major offense in violation of
the ECC.
46. That TRI, given that if it has acquired the necessary
documents for operation, is also required to put up an environmental
guarantee fund (EGF) which shall be used to finance the needs for
emergency response, clean-up rehabilitation of areas that may be
damaged during the program or projects actual implementation.
47. As consequence of its breach of duty to continuously comply
with its ECC which has caused a negative impact to the environment,
TRI must therefore be held liable for its violations and use its EGF to
conduct rehabilitation programs within its area.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, presmises considered, it is respectfully prayed

that this Honorable Court:

1. ISSUE a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO)

immediately upon filing of this petition, ordering TRI to refrain from
taking any action pursuant to the project;
2. DIRECT TRI to permanently cease and desist from further
conducting pyrolysis operations within the facility;
3. DIRECT TRI to conduct clean-up operations within the area
where it dumped its waste;
4. ISSUE a Writ of Continuing Mandamus ordering DENR to
execute its order to permanently shut down the TRI pyrolysis facility
until the same is satisfied;

10

5. Render judgment in in favor of the Petitioner by entitling it to

judgment against Respondents for all such sums adjudged in favor of
Petitioner.
Petitioners pray for such other reliefs which relate to the right of
the people to a balanced and healthful ecology or to the protection,
preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the environment.
Bulacan City for Municipality of Angat, May 13, 2014.

BOLINTIAM & HIZON LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Petitioner/Petitioner
41F PHILAM TOWER, Paseo de Roxas,
Makati City

By:
________________________________
Ray Francis V. Bolintiam
Counsel for Petitioner/Petitioner
Roll of Attorneys No. 29239
MCLE No. III-007843/21 Dec
2012/Pasig City
IBP No. LPN-04240/Lifetime
Member/Quezon City
PTR No. 612976/19-Jan-2012/Quezon
City
________________________________
11

Mitzie Hizon
Counsel for Petitioner/Petitioner
Roll of Attorneys No. 20239
MCLE No. III-017843/21 Dec
2012/Pasig City
IBP No. LPN-14240/Lifetime
Member/Quezon City
PTR No. 612476/19-Jan-2012/Quezon
City

12

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

Juan de la Cruz, subscribing under oath, hereby deposes and

states that: He is a PETITIONER in this case. He has read the foregoing
petition, and the allegations contained therein are true and correct of
her own knowledge and/or based on authentic records. He attests to
the authenticity of the annexes thereof.
He has not commenced any other action or proceeding involving
the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; No such
action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency;
If petitioner should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been
filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, He hereby
undertakes to notify this Honorable Court within five (5) days
therefrom.

_______________________________

13

JUAN

DE

LA

CRUZ

in

representation of
OUR LADY OF PEACE INSTITUTE
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this ____ day

of __________ 20___ at _________________ affiant exhibiting to me his
Community Tax Certificate No.____________________ issued on
________________
20__
at
______________City.

Doc. No. ____ ;

Page No. ____ ;
Book No. ____ ;
Series of 20___.

14