21 The court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner 22 and

21 the court denied the motion for reconsideration

This preview shows page 79 - 81 out of 98 pages.

[21] The court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner [22] and the latter sought: relief from the CA via a petition for certiorari. Petitioner averred that: THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION SO GRAVE AS TO LOSE JURISDICTION IN ASSUMING AND EXERCISING ITS JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASE NO. 03-3745-MN, CONSIDERING THAT: A. THE HONORABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT. JURISDICTION IS VESTED WITH THE MAKATI CITY GOVERNMENT, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT CONCERNED. B. THE COMPLAINT IS BARRED BY RES JUDICATA . THE MAKATI CITY GOVERNMENT HAS ALREADY DECIDED A COMPLAINT FILED BY FRABELLE. FRABELLE DID NOT ELEVATE THE SAME ON APPEAL, OR, IN ANY WAY, QUESTION SUCH DECISION. THUS, THE DECISION BY THE MAKATI CITY GOVERNMENT IS NOW FINAL AND EXECUTORY. C. AT THE TIME THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED, IT WAS BARRED BY LITIS PENDENTIA . A SIMILAR ACTION WAS PENDING WITH THE POLLUTION ADJUDICATION BOARD (PAB) WHICH, SUBSEQUENTLY, FOUND NO LIABILITY ON THE PART OF AC. FRABELLE IS CLEARLY AND UNDENIABLY GUILTY OF FORUM-SHOPPING. 79
Image of page 79
D. PLAINTIFF FRABELLE HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST AC ENTERPRISES. [23] Petitioner asserted that, by express provision of law, the City of Makati has primary jurisdiction over the complaint and is the competent authority to determine the existence of any incidence of pollution, the special standards and regulations controlling the same and the resolution whether a party has complied with the regulations. The complaint does not fall under any of the exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. Respondent is guilty of short-circuiting the whole process without requisite justification. Contrary to the contention of respondent, the proceedings before the City Government are quasi-judicial in nature. It pointed out that the City Government had already made its findings, which respondent did not contest in the proper tribunal within the reglementary period. It did not appeal the decision of the City Building Official conformably with DENR Administrative Order No. 37-45 (General Manual of Operations for Devolved Functions from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to the Local Government Units); hence, the resolution became final and executory. It insisted that the complaint is but a desperate attempt to revive what is otherwise a dead issue. On September 21, 2004, the CA rendered judgment denying the petition. [24] The fallo of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the dismissal of the petition rendered the application for a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction moot and academic.
Image of page 80
Image of page 81

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 98 pages?

  • Fall '17
  • A Mercy, Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Trial court, Municipality, The Grave

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes