1. 1.DASMARINAS VS MONTERREY GR. No. 175550
2. TAWANG MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE vs. LA TRINIDAD WATER DISTRICT, Reso!"e!#. G.R. No. 1$$%71 M&'() 22, 2011 *&(#s+ *&(#s+ Petitioner Tawang Multi-Purpose Cooperative (TMPC), a registered cooperative established by Barangay Tawang, La Trinidad residents for the purpose of operating a doestic drin!ing water service, applied with the "ational #ater $esources Board (the Board) for a Certi%cate of Public Convenience (CPC) to aintain and operate a waterwor!s syste within its barangay& But respondent La Trinidad #ater 'istrict 'istrict (LT#') (LT#'),, a govern governent-ow ent-owned ned corporat corporation ion that supplied supplied water water within within La Trinidad rinidad for doest doestic, ic, indust industria rial, l, and and coer coercia ciall purpo purposes ses,, oppose opposed d the appli applica catio tion& n& LT#' claie claied d that that its franchise was eclusive eclusive in that its charter provides that no separate franchise franchise can be granted within its area of operation without its prior written consent& till, the Board granted TMPC*s application& ec& +& clusive .ranchise& .ranchise& "o franchise shall be granted to any other person or agency for doestic, industrial industrial or coercial coercial water service within the district or any portion thereof unless and ecept to the etent that the board of directors of said district consents thereto by resolution duly adopted, such resolution, however, shall be sub/ect to review by the 0dinistration& LT#' contested the grant before the $egional Trial Court ($TC) of La Trinidad which, after hearing, rendered /udgent setting aside the Board*s decision and cancelling the CPC it issued to TMPC& The $TC denied TMPC*s otion for reconsideration, propting the latter to coe to this Court on petition for review& 1ssue 2 #hether or not ection + of P' "o& 345, as aended, is valid to be the foundation of the rulings of $TC& ELD+ The ELD+ The court ruled on the negative& ection 6, 0rticle 718 of the 349 Constitution and ection 33, 0rtic 0rticle le 711 711 of the 345 345 Consti Constitut tution ion states states that2 that2 "o franc franchis hise, e, certi% certi%ca cate, te, or any any other other for for of authori:ation authori:ation for the operation of a public utility shall be granted ecept to citi:ens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organi:ed under the laws of the Philippines, at least sity per centu of whose whose capita capitall is owned owned by such such citi:e citi:ens ns,, nor shall shall such such franch franchis ise, e, certi% certi%ca cate te or author authori:a i:atio tion n be eclusive in character or for a longer period than %fty years& Plain words do not re;uire eplanation& The constitution is clear that franchises for the operation of a public utility cannot be eclusive in character& There is no eception& 1n case of con
. Me'"& W&#e' Ds#'(# e# &/. vs. &(&!o e# &/. G.R. No. 1$5, Se#e3e' 0, 2004 *ACTS2 *ACTS2 =n =ct& 3>, ?>>3, Merida #ater 'istrict (M#') conducted a public hearing for the purpose of increasing the water rate& The Local #ater @tilities 0dinistration (L#@0) con%red M#'*s proposed water rate and attached to the approved letter was a $ate chedule of 0pproved $ates containing progressive increase of water rates over a certain period& =n ept& 9, ?>>?, M#' approved $esolution "o& >>A-? increasing to 4> water consuption for the %rst 3> cubic eters& Thereafter, petitioner issued notices of disconnection to those we refused to pay the water rate increase and did not render servic service e to those those who opted to pay pay the increa increased sed rate on an insta install llent ent basis& basis& =n .eb& 9, ?>>9, ?>>9, respondents %led with $TC a petition for 1n/unction against M#' alleging the latter violated L=1 >> by ipleenting ipleenting a rate increase greater greater than A> of current rate and failing to conduct public hearing for the iposed rate of 4>& Petitioners %led a Motion to 'isiss for not 0$ under P' 345 as aended& =n .eb& ?A, ?>>9 one of the responden respondents ts ;uestione ;uestioned d the legality legality of the water rate increase increase before before the "ationa "ationall #ater $esources esources Board Board ("#$B)& ("#$B)& $TC $TC denied denied petitione petitioners rs Motion Motion to 'isiss& 'isiss& =n appeal, appeal, C0 aDred the th e $TC& $TC& ISSUE+ (3) 'id $TC have /urisdiction over the sub/ect atterE (?) 'id 'id respo respond ndent ents* s* recou recours rse e to trial trial courts courts consti constitut tute e a prope properr act act despit despite e failur failure e to eha ehaust ust adinistrative reediesE ELD2 ELD2 (3) Fes, '>ctrine of 0$ applies Gwhere a clai is cogni:able in the %rst instance by an adinistrative agency aloneH /udicial intervention is withheld until the adinistrative adinistrative process has run its course&I 0beabe abe vs& Manta Manta does does not apply apply here here as the iss issue ue involv involved ed water water rights rights for irrig irrigati ation& on& Petit Petition ioners ers contention that the $TC has no /urisdiction because the "#$B has original and eclusive /urisdiction over a dispute concerning the increase of water rate is clearly without erit& $espondents failure to
ehaus ehaustt adinis adinistrati trative ve reedie reedies s does not aJect aJect /urisdic /urisdiction tion of the $TC& "on-0$ "on-0$ render renders s an action action preature and not yet ripe for /udicial deterination& (?) "o, since cases were observance of the '0$ has been disregarded re;uire re;uire a strong showing of the inade;uacy inade;uacy of the prescribed procedure procedure and of ipending har& $espondents $espondents cited (3) patent illegality and (?) denial of due process as reasons for failing to 0$ but the forer was not shown and the latter did not eist being that M#' as aditted by respondents did in fact conduct a hearing& %. %. Me#'o I/o/o W&#e' vs CA &' 1, 2005 DOCTRINE+ The DOCTRINE+ The instant case certainly calls for the application and interpretation of pertinent laws and /urisprudence /urisprudence in order to deterine deterine whether private private respondents* respondents* actions violate petitioner*s petitioner*s rights as a water district and /ustify an in/unction& This issue does not so uch provideoccasion to invo!e the special !nowledge and epertise of the #ater Council as it necessitates /udicial intervention .0CT2 Petitioner is a water district organi:ed under the provisions of Presidential 'ecree "o& 345& 1t was granted by the Local #ater @tilities 0dinistration Conditional Certi%cate of Conforance "o& 3& 1ts service areas encopass the entire territorial areas of 1loilo City etc& oetie between 0pril and May of 3449, petitioner %led nine (4) individual yet identical petitions for in/unction with prayer for preliinary in/unction and K or teporary restraining order against herein private respondents the pertinent portions of which read2 +& That pursuant to the provisions of section 93 (a) of P&'& 345, as aended, the petitioner as a #ater 'istrict was authori:ed toadopt laws and regulations regulations governing the drilling, aintenance and operation of wells within its boundaries for purposes other than single faily doestic use on overlying land, with then provision that any well operated in violation of such regulations shall be deeed an interference with the waters of the districtH Private respondents invo!ed the lac! of /urisdiction of the trial court, contending that the cases were within the original and eclusive /urisdiction of the "ational #ater $esources Council (#ater Council) under Presidential 'ecree "o& 3>A, otherwise !nown as the #ater Code of the Philippines (#ater Code)& 1n addition, private respondents a "ava and $ebecca Berlin denied having etracted or withdrawn water fro the ground, uch less sold the sae 0dditionally, 0dditionally, he alleged the petitioner*s rules and regulations regulations were not published in the =Dcial a:ette and hence petitioner had no causeof action& Meanwhile, private respondent erry Lu:uriaga claied that he was not the real party in interest, interest, but hoeart, 1nc& which hasthe control and possession of the property where the alleged withdrawal of ground water was ta!ing place& The trial court disissed the petitions, ruling that the controversy controversy was within the original /urisdiction of the #ater Council, involving, involving, as itdid, itdid, the appropria appropriation, tion, eploitatio eploitation, n, and utili:at utili:ation ion of water, water, and factual issues which were within the #ater Council*s copetence& 1naddition, the trial court held that petitione petitionerr failed failed to ehaust ehaust adinist adinistrati rative ve reedie reedies s under under the doctrine doctrine of Gpriary Gpriary adinis adinistrati trative ve /urisdiction&I /urisdiction&I M$ denied denied shortly thereafter thereafter&& ISSUE2 ISSUE2 #hether or not the trial court ay entertain the positions ELD2 ELD2 Petitioner anchors anchors its clai on ection 93 (now 9?) of P' 345, as aended, which reads2 reads2 ec& 9?& Protection of waters and .acilities of 'istrict& 0 district shall have the right to2 (a) Coence Coence,, aintain aintain,, interven intervene e in, defend defend and coprois coproise e actions actions or proceedi proceedings ngs to prevent prevent interference with or deterioration of water ;uality or the natural
as reiterated in antos v& Court of 0ppeals, that where the issue involved is not the settleent of a water rights dispute, but the en/oyent of a right to water use for which a perit was already already granted, the regular court has /urisdiction and not the #ater Council& 0 /udicial ;uestion is raised when the deterination of the ;uestions involves the eercise of a /udicial function, i&e&, the ;uestion involves the deterination of what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are with respect to the atter in controversy& 0s opposed to a oot ;uestion or one properly decided by the eecutive or legislative branch, a /udicial ;uestion is properly addressed to the courts& The instant case certainly certainly calls for the application application and interpretat interpretation ion of pertinent laws laws and /urispruden /urisprudence ce in order to deterine deterine whether private respondents* actions violate petitioner*s rights as a water district and /ustify an in/unction& This issue does not so uch provide occasion to invo!e the special !nowledge and epertise of the #ater Council as it necessitates /udicial intervention& #hile initially it ay appear that there is a diension to the petitions which pertains to the sphere of the #ater Council, i&e&, the appropriation appropriation of water which the #ater Code de%nes as Gthe ac;uisition of rights over the use of waters or the ta!ing or diverting of waters fro a natural source in the anner and for any purpose allowed by law,I in reality the atter is at ost erely collateral to the ain thrust of the petitions& The petitions having raised a /udicial ;uestion, it follows that the doctrine of ehaustion ehaustion of adinistrative reedies, on the basis of which the petitions were disissed by the trial court and the Court of 0ppeals, does not even coe to play& The petition is reanded to the trial court& 5. METROPOLITAN CEU WATER WATER DISTRICT v. MARGARITA ADALA 6/8 %, 20079 G.R. No. 1$41% *ACTS+ $espondent *ACTS+ $espondent %led on =ctober ?+, ?>>? an application with the "ational #ater $esources Board ("#$B) ("#$B) for the iss issuan uance ce of a Certi% Certi%cat cate e of Publi Public c Conven Convenie ience nce (CPC) (CPC) to opera operate te and and ainta aintain in waterwor!s syste in sitios an 8icente, .atia, and abag in Barangay Bulacao, Cebu City& 0t the initial hearing of 'eceber 3A, ?>>? during which respondent subitted proof of copliance with /urisdictional re;uireents of notice and publication, herein petitioner Metropolitan Cebu #ater 'istrict, a governent-owned and controlled corporation created pursuant to P&'& P&'& 345 which too! eJect upon its issuance by then President Marcos on May ?6, 349, as aended, appeared through its lawyers to oppose the application& application& 1n its =pposition, petitioner prayed for the denial of respondent*s application on the following grounds2 (3) petitioner*s Board of 'irectors had not consented to the issuance of the franchise applied for, such consent being a andatory condition pursuant to P&'& P&'& 345, (?) the proposed waterwor waterwor!s !s would interfere with petitioner*s water supply supply which it has the right to protect, and (9) the water needs of the residents in the sub/ect area was already being well served by petitioner& "#$B "#$B granted granted 0dala*s 0dala*s applica application tion after hearing hearing and an ocular ocular inspecti inspection on of the area area and denied MC#'*s M.$& $TC denied the appeal and upheld "#$B 'ecision& $TC denied M.$& ISSUE:ELD2 ISSUE:ELD2 #=" ection + of P&'& 345, which vests an Oeclusive franchiseO upon public utilities is constitutional and ay be relied upon by MC#' in its opposition of 0dala*s application for a CPC "= ec& +& clusive .ranchise & "o .ranchise shall be granted to any other person or agency for doestic, industrial or coercial water service within the district or any portion thereof unless and ecept to the etent that the board of directors of said district consents thereto by resolution duly adopted, such resolution, however, shall be sub/ect to review by the 0dinistration& There being being no such consent on the the part of its board board of directors, directors, petitioner concludes concludes that respondent*s respondent*s application application for CPC should be denied& Possession of franchise by a water district does not bar the issuance of a CPC for an area covered by the water district& 0 CPC is foral written authority issued by ;uasi-/udicial bodies for the operation and aintenance of a public utility for which a franchise is not re;uired by law and a CPC issued by this Board is an authority to operate and aintain a waterwor!s syste or water supply service& =n the other hand, a franchise is privilege or authority to operate appropriate appropriate private property for public use vested by Congress Congress through legislation& Clearly, therefore, a CPC is diJerent fro a franchise and ection + of Presidential 'ecree 345 refers only to franchise& ec& + of P&'& 345 is @"C="T1T@T1="0L- The provision ust be deeed void ab initio for being irreconcilable irreconcilable with 0rticle 0rticle 718 ection 6 of the 349Constitution which was rati%ed on Qan& 3, 349 the constitution in force when P&'& 345 was issued on May ?6, 349& CT1=" 6& "o franchise, certi%cate, or any other for of authori:ation for the operation of a public utility shall be granted ecept to citi:ens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organi:ed under the laws of the Philippines at least sity per centu of the capital of which is owned by such citi:ens, nor shall such franchise, certi%cate, or authori:ation be eclusive in character or for a longer period than %fty years& This provision has been substantially reproduced reproduced in 0rticle 711 ection 33 of the 345 Constitution, including the prohibition against eclusive franchises&
#ater districts fall under the ter Gpublic utilityI 0 Opubli Opublic c utilit utilityO yO is a busine business ss or servic service e engag engaged ed in regul regular arly ly supply supplying ing the public public with with soe soe coodity or service of public conse;uence such as electricity, gas, water, transportation, telephone or telegraph service& ("ational Power Corp& v& C0)
