This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-11-02 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| 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. | |||||