CA stops the acquisition by LLDA of the Taguig facility of waste companies

The Court of Appeals has instructed the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) to evacuate an estate along the lake along C6 Road in Taguig City and return it to IPM Construction and Development Corporation (IPM).

In a resolution of six pages dated August 29, 2018, written by Associate Justice Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla of the Special 14th Division of the CA, the Court of Appeal also excluded LLDA General Manager Jaime Medina and other officers, agents and staff from "interference, expropriation and intrusion "With IPMs over the property until the case is resolved.

READ: CA Resolution 08292018 (IPM versus LLDA)

The case arose from a petition filed by IPM against LLDA after the latter was closed and took control of the 22-hectare estate along the C6 Road at Barangay Calzada in Taguig City.

The LLDA claimed that IPM, the recognized waste supplier of Taguig City, is involved in the dumping of waste and illegal reclamation of the banks of Laguna de Bay. IPM, which used the premises for its waste disposal station and the material recovery facility, denied the accusations.

READ: Trash hauling companies are faced with raps about the reclamation of Lake Laguna

In a statement, IPM welcomed the CA's ban and insisted that it had not violated environmental legislation and rules and regulations. It added that the operation of its Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station is covered by the required permits and licenses.

"LLDA itself, in a Cease and Desist Order [CDO] issued on June 13, 2018, did not make any findings regarding alleged dumping of waste in the C6 area used by IPM. There is also no backfilling nor regeneration going into the possession of IPM, "the company emphasized.

IPM insisted that LLDA can not use the CDO as a cover for land grab. "This is what LLDA did with IPM." Faced with LLDA's violent actions in taking over, expropriating and effectively depriving IPM of pursuing its legitimate operations, the company simply used a remedy that was available to it. Where else will IPM seek protection from this act of LLDA except to resort to the court? "Said it.

IPM added that the CA petition draws attention to whether LLDA has the power and authority to seize IPM ownership. "IPM questioned the right of LLDA because the rented property of IPM falls under the Torrens system, which LLDA can not collateral attacks by simply claiming that it is part of the Shoreland and by force IPM against this", it out.

Following the Court's ruling, the IPM said that LLDA – as a government agency – should be the first to show respect for the courts and to faithfully comply with the CA's legal order. / ee

Do not miss the latest news and information.

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to access The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download from 4 hours and share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.

Contact us for feedback, complaints or questions.

Source link

Leave a Reply