4.metro Iloilo Water District vs. CA

9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 454
VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 249

Metro Iloilo Water District vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 122855. March 31, 2005.
METRO ILOILO WATER DISTRICT, petitioner, vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Former SECOND
DIVISION, Manila, HON. SEVERINO C. AGUILAR,
Presiding Judge, Branch 35, RTC, Iloilo, EMMA NAVA,
RUFINO SITACA, JR., REXES URSUA, CARMEN
PANGANTIHON, BENITO GO, REBECCA BERLIN,
and/or CHIT BERLIN, LUIS CARREON, CHARLES
KANA-AN and GERRY LUZURIAGA, respondents.
Courts; Jurisdictions; Judicial Questions; A judicial question

is raised when the determination of the question involves the
exercise of a judicial function, i.e., the question involves the
determination of what the law is and what the legal rights of the
parties are with respect to the matter in controversy; A judicial
question is properly addressed to the courts.—A judicial question
is raised when the determination of the question involves the
exercise of a judicial function, i.e., the question involves the
determination of what the law is and what the legal rights of the
parties are with respect to the matter in controversy. As opposed
to a moot question or one properly decided by the executive or
legislative branch, a judicial question is properly addressed to the
courts.
Same; Same; The trial court’s jurisdiction must be upheld
where the issue involved is not the settlement of a water rights
dispute, but the enjoyment of a right to water use for which a
permit was already granted.—In the analogous case of Amistoso v.
Ong, petitioner had an approved Water Rights Grant from the
Department of Public Works, Transportation and
Communications. The trial court was not asked to grant
petitioner the right to use but to compel private respondents to
recognize that right. Thus, we declared that the trial court’s
jurisdiction must be upheld where the issue involved is not the
settlement of a water rights dispute, but the enjoyment of a right
to water use for which a permit was already granted.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174954cbe109399c01d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
Same; Same; It is petitioner’s enjoyment of its rights as a

water district which it seeks to assert against private respondents.
—In like
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
250
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
manner, the present petition calls for the issuance of an

injunction order to prevent private respondents from extracting
and selling ground water within petitioner’s service area in
violation of the latter’s water permit. There is no dispute
regarding petitioner’s right to ground water within its service
area. It is petitioner’s enjoyment of its rights as a water district
which it seeks to assert against private respondents.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Norberto J. Pocesion for petitioner.
Teofilo C. Leonidas, Jr. for respondent Nava.
Efren B. Trenas and Gregorio M. Rubias for
respondent Benito Go.
Pablo Tolentino for Rufino Sitaca, Jr.
Eugenio O. Original for respondent Rexes Ursua.
Rex C. Muzones for respondent Kana-an.
Pablo R. Nava III for respondent G. de Luzuriaga.
Simplicia S. Medina for respondent L. Carreon.
Justiniani, Romero & Associates for respondent C.
Pangantihon.
Mae Gellecanao-Laserna for respondent R. Berlin.
TINGA, J.:
1
Before this Court is a Petition dated November 9, 1995
filed by 2 the Metro Iloilo Water District assailing the
Decision
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 27-43.

2Id., at pp. 45-52. Penned by Associate Justice Salome A. Montoya and
concurred in by Associate Justices Fidel P. Purisima and Godardo A.
Jacinto.
251
VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 251

of the Court of Appeals dated

3
June 19, 1995 which affirmed
the trial court’s Order dismissing the petitions for
injunction filed by petitioner against private respondents.
Petitioner is a water district organized under the
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 198 (P.D. 198), as
amended. It was granted by the Local Water Utilities
Administration
4
Conditional Certificate of Conformance No.
71 on January 12, 1979. Its service areas encompass the
entire territorial areas of Iloilo City and the Municipalities
of Ma-asin, Cabatuan, Santa Barbara and Pavia.
Sometime between April and May of 1993, petitioner
filed nine (9) individual yet identical petitions for
injunction with prayer for preliminary
5
injunction and/or
temporary restraining order against herein private
respondents the pertinent portions of which read:
...
4.—That pursuant to the provisions of Section 31 (a) of P.D.
198, as amended, the petitioner as a Water District was
authorized to adopt laws and regulations governing the drilling,
maintenance and operation of wells within its boundaries for
purposes other than single family domestic use on overlying land,
with then provision that any well operated in violation of such
regulations shall be deemed an interference with the waters of the
district;
5.—That by virtue of said authorization, the Board of Directors
for the petitioner promulgated its “Rules Governing Ground
Water Pumping and Spring Development Within the Territorial
Jurisdiction of the Metro Iloilo Water District,” Section 3 of
which provides as follows:
“Ground Water Pumping and Spring Development. Except when the

use of water is for single family domestic use, no person, natural or
juridical shall abstract or withdraw ground water and appropriate the
waters from springs within the jurisdiction of the District without first
securing a water
_______________
3 Records, pp. 21-24.

4Id., at p. 38.
5Id., at pp. 33-86.
252

permit from the Council and no person shall engage in the business of
drilling wells either as test wells or production wells for the purpose of
abstracting or withdrawing ground water without first registering as
well driller with the Council; Provided, that the person drilling his own
well or through the services of a qualified well driller shall comply with
the standards and requirements established herein in addition to those
established by the Council for the exploitation of ground water
resources.”
6.—That the respondent has abstracted or withdrawn ground

water within the territorial jurisdiction of the petitioner at
___________________ Iloilo City, without first securing a Water
Permit from the National Water Resources Council nor had its
well driller registered as such with said council, and sold said
water so extracted to commercial and other consumers in Iloilo
City, within petitioner’s service area;
7.—That the unauthorized extraction or withdrawal of ground
water by the respondent without the necessary permit therefor is
in violation of the rules and regulations prescribed by the Board
of Directors of the petitioner as above-mentioned duly approved
by the National Water Resources Council and constitutes
interference with or deterioration of water quality or the natural
flow of surface or ground water supply which may be used or
useful for any purpose of the petitioner for which the petitioner as
a Water District may commence, maintain, intervene in, defend
and compromise actions or proceedings under Section 31 (a) of
P.D. 198, as amended;
8.—That the act of the respondent in continuing to extract or
withdraw ground water without a Water Permit therefor, is in
violation of Art. XIII of P.D. 1067 of the Water Code of the
Philippines, and unless such act is restrained, will definitely6
cause great loss upon the petitioner as a Water District. . . .
In their respective answers, private respondents uniformly

invoked the lack of jurisdiction of the trial court,
contending that the cases were within the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the National Water Resources
Council (Water Council) under Presidential Decree No.
1067, otherwise known as the
_______________
6Id., at pp. 34-35.
253
VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 253

Water Code of the Philippines (Water

7
Code). In addition,8
private respondents Emma Nava and Rebecca Berlin
denied having extracted or withdrawn 9
water from the
ground, much less sold the same. Private respondent
Carmen Pangantihon likewise denied having constructed
any waterworks system in her area but admitted that she
had constructed her own deep well,10 unaware that she
needed to get a permit to do the same. Private respondent
Rufino Sitaca maintained that petitioner’s source of water
are reservoirs from rivers and are thus not affected by his
well. Moreover, he claimed that his water permit
application was deemed approved,
11
and thus he is entitled
to use the water from his well.
Private respondent Benito Go admitted that he
extracted water from the ground, which he claimed to be
his private property, and used the 12
water for his
lumberyard and domestic purposes. Additionally, he
alleged that petitioner’s rules and regulations were not
published in the Official
13
Gazette and hence petitioner had
no cause of action. Private respondent Charles Kana-an
asserted that he had complied with the requirements for
the approval of his water permit application. He claimed
that he was extracting and selling water with petitioner’s 14
knowledge, and without damage and injury to the latter.
Meanwhile, private respondent Gerry Luzuriaga claimed
that he was not the real party in interest, but Shoemart,
Inc. which has the control and possession of the property
where15the alleged withdrawal of ground water was taking
place.
_______________
7Id., at p. 88.
8Id., at p. 108.
9Ibid.
10Id., at p. 99.
11Id., at p. 95.
12Id., at p. 105.
13Id., at p. 104.
14Id., at p. 113.
15Id., at p. 124.
254

16
The trial court dismissed the petitions in its Order dated
March 17, 1994, ruling that the controversy was within the
original jurisdiction of the Water Council, involving, as it
did, the appropriation, exploitation and utilization of
water, and factual issues which were within the Water
Council’s competence. In addition, the trial court held that
petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies under
the doctrine of “primary administrative 17
jurisdiction.”
Petitioner’s Motion for 18Reconsideration was thereafter
denied on April19
29, 1994.
A petition dated May 27, 1994 seeking a review of the
trial court’s order of dismissal was filed before this Court
but the same was referred to the Court of Appeals for
consideration
20
and adjudication on the merits in the
Resolution dated July 11, 1994.
Petitioner sought the review of the order of the trial
court dismissing the petitions and denying its motion for
reconsideration, on the ground that the trial court failed
21
to
adhere to this Court’s rulings 22
in Amistoso v. Ong and
Santos v. Court of Appeals, which upheld the regular
courts’ jurisdiction over disputes which involve not the
settlement of water rights but the enjoyment of the right
to water use for which a permit had already been granted.
The Court of Appeals denied the petition, holding that
the trial court did not err in dismissing the case for want of
jurisdiction as it was the Water Council which had
jurisdiction over the case. The appellate court ratiocinated:
The controversy in this case arose from the fact that the
petitioner Iloilo Water District was granted water rights in
Iloilo City
_______________
16Supra note 3.
17Id., at p. 26.
18Id., at p. 32.
19Id., at pp. 5-20.
20Id., at pp. 135.
21 215 Phil. 197; 130 SCRA 228 (1984).
22 G.R. No. 61218, September 23, 1992, 214 SCRA 162 (1992).
255
VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 255

and the respondents also extracted or withdrew ground water

within the same jurisdiction.
While at first impression this case involves a violation of the
petitioner’s enjoyment of a right to water use, the fact is that it
actually involves also a dispute over the appropriation,
utilization, exploitation, development, control, conservation and
protection of waters because the respondents have allegedly
engaged in the extraction or withdrawal of ground water without
a permit from the NWRC within the territorial jurisdiction of the
petitioner. Therefore, Art. 88 of P.D. No. 1067 giving the NWRC
original jurisdiction over the cases is applicable.
The NWRC has jurisdiction to hear and decide disputes
relating to appropriation, utilization and control of water while
the Regional Trial Court only has appellate jurisdiction over the
case. This was the ruling of the Supreme Court in Abe-abe vs.
Manta, 90 SCRA 524 which was reiterated in Tanjay Water
District vs. Gabanton, 172 SCRA 253.
...
The cases of Santos v. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 170 and
Amistoso vs. Ong, 130 SCRA 228 are not applicable to the case at
bar for here, what is involved is not only the alleged violation of
the grantee’s right but a question of whether or not the
respondents have equal right 23to the appropriation, utilization and
exploitation of water rights.”
The Court of 24Appeals denied petitioner’s Motion for

Reconsideration dated 25
July 11, 1995 in its Resolution of
September 29, 1995.
Petitioner now contends that the extraction or
withdrawal of ground water as well as the sale thereof
within its territorial26jurisdiction is a violation of its rights
as a water district. Being a violation thereof, the regular
courts have jurisdiction over the dispute. On the other
hand, private respondents
_______________
23Supra note 2 at pp. 50-52.

24Id., at pp. 53-55.
25Id., at p. 66.
26Id., at pp. 31-32.
256

unanimously maintain that it is the Water Council which

has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case. Thus,
the sole issue in this petition, as presented by petitioner, is:
DID THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO HAVE

JURISDICTION
27
OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE
PETITIONS?
Petitioner anchors its claim on Section 31 (now 32) of PD

198, as amended, which reads:
Sec. 32. Protection of Waters and Facilities of District.—A

district shall have the right to:
(a) Commence, maintain, intervene in, defend and
compromise actions or proceedings to prevent interference
with or deterioration of water quality or the natural flow
of any surface, stream or ground water supply which may be
used or useful for any purpose of the district or be a common
benefit to the lands or its inhabitants. The ground water within a
district is necessary to the performance of the district's powers
and such district is hereby authorized to adopt rules and
regulations subject to the approval of the National Water
Resources Council governing the drilling, maintenance and
operation of wells within its boundaries for purposes other than a
singled family domestic use on overlying land. Any well operated
on violation of such regulations shall be deemed in interference
with the waters of the district.
...
(c) Prohibit any person, firm or corporation from vending,
selling, or otherwise disposing of water for public purposes
within the service area of the district where district facilities
are available to provide such service, or fix terms and conditions
by permit for such sale or disposition of water.
By virtue of the above provisions, petitioner states that as

a water district, it has the right to prevent interference
with the water of the district; and to enforce such right, it
is given the remedies of commencing, maintaining, or
intervening in, defending or entering into appropriate
actions or proceedings.
_______________
27Id., at p. 34.
257
VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 257

In asserting the jurisdiction of the regular courts over its

petitions and the propriety of its filing of the petitions
before the trial court, petitioner
28
invokes the ruling of the
Court in Amistoso
29
v. Ong, as reiterated in Santos v. Court
of Appeals, that where the issue involved is not the
settlement of a water rights dispute, but the enjoyment of
a right to water use for which a permit was already
granted, the regular court has jurisdiction and not the
Water Council.
Petitioner insists that there is no occasion to invoke the
original jurisdiction of the Water Council in this case since
there is no question of appropriation, exploitation,
utilization, development, control, conservation and
protection of water. The only dispute, according to
petitioner, pertains to the act of private respondents in
extracting ground water from the territory of petitioner as
a water district and selling the same within its service
area, or more succinctly, private respondents’ interference
with the granted right of petitioner30
over ground water
within its territorial jurisdiction.
Private respondents, for their part, staunchly invoke
Article 88 of the Water Code, which grants original
jurisdiction over all disputes relating to the appropriation,
utilization, exploitation, development, control, 31conservation
and protection of waters to the Water Council.32
Relying on the cases of Abe-abe
33
v. Manta and Tanjay
Water District v. Gabaton, private respondents maintain
that the Water Council is exclusively vested with original
jurisdic-
_______________
28Supra note 21.

29Supra note 22.
30Supra note 1 at p. 314.
31 Art. 88 of the Water Code provides:
The Council shall have original jurisdiction over all disputes relating to
appropriation, utilization, exploitation, development, control, conservation and
protection of waters within the meaning and context of the provisions of this Code.
32 G.R. No. L-4827, May 31, 1979, 90 SCRA 524.

33 G.R. No. 63742, April 17, 1989, 172 SCRA 253.
258

tion to settle water disputes under the Water Code. They

claim that the Amistoso and Santos cases do not apply to
the instant case since in Amistoso, the issue was the
prevention of the flow of water through an irrigation
canal, and in Santos, the issue referred to the prevention of
the enjoyment of a water right. In contrast, the issue in
the instant case is the right to appropriate water which
petitioner and some of the private respondents profess to
have.
We find merit in the petition.
The petitions filed before the trial court were for the
issuance of an injunction order for respondents to cease and
desist from extracting or withdrawing water from
petitioner’s well
34
and from selling the same within its
service areas. The petitions contained factual allegations
in support of the prayer for
injunction, to wit:
1. the grant to petitioner of a Conditional Certificate of

Conformance by the Local Water Utilities Administration
over areas from which water was allegedly extracted or
withdrawn by private respondents, by virtue of which its
Board of Directors promulgated rules governing ground
water pumping within its service areas;
2. abstraction or withdrawal of water within the territorial
jurisdiction of petitioner by private respondents without
first securing a permit from the Water Council, or
registering their well drillers, and sale of said water so
extracted to commercial and other consumers within
petitioner’s service areas;
3. that the unauthorized extraction or withdrawal of ground
water by private respondents without the necessary
permit was in violation of petitioner’s prescribed rules,
and constitutes interference for which petitioner may
commence, maintain, intervene in, defend and
compromise actions or proceedings under Sec. 31 of P.D.
No. 198;
4. that the extraction or withdrawal of ground water
without the corresponding permit was a violation of Art.
13 of the Water Code; and
_______________
34Supra note 3 at pp. 36-37.
259
VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 259

5. that great damage and prejudice will be suffered by petitioner if

private respondents’ extraction and withdrawal of ground water,
as well as the selling thereof be allowed to continue.
In essence, the petitions focus on the violations incurred by

private respondents by virtue of their alleged unauthorized
extraction and withdrawal of ground water within
petitioner’s service area, vis-à-vis petitioner’s vested rights
as a water district. At issue is whether or not private
respondents’ extraction and sale of ground water within
petitioner’s service area violated petitioner’s rights as a
water district. It is at once obvious that the petitions
raise a judicial question.
A judicial question is raised when the determination of
the question involves the exercise of a judicial function, i.e.,
the question involves the determination of what the law is
and what the legal rights of the parties are with respect to
the matter in controversy. As opposed to a moot question or
one properly decided by the executive or legislative branch,
35
a judicial question is properly addressed to the courts.
The instant case certainly calls for the application and
interpretation of pertinent laws and jurisprudence in order
to determine whether private respondents’ actions violate
petitioner’s rights as a water district and justify an
injunction. This issue does not so much provide occasion to
invoke the special knowledge and expertise of the Water
Council as it necessitates judicial intervention. While
initially it may appear that there is a dimension to the
petitions which pertains to the sphere of the Water
Council, i.e., the appropriation of water which the Water
Code defines as “the acquisition of rights over the use of
waters or the taking or diverting of waters from a natural
source in the manner and for any purpose allowed by law,”
in reality the matter is at most merely collateral to the
main thrust of the petitions.
_______________
35 Jorge Gonzales and Panel of Arbitrators v. Climax Mining Ltd.,

Climax-Arimco Mining Corp., and Australasian Philippines Mining Inc.,
G.R. No. 161957, February 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 608.
260

The petitions having raised a judicial question, it follows

that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies,
on the basis of which the petitions were dismissed by the
trial 36court and the Court of Appeals, does not even come to
play.
Notably too, private respondents themselves do not
dispute petitioner’s rights
37
as a water district. The cases
of Abe-Abe 38
v. Manta and Tanjay Water District v.
Gabaton invoked by private respondents are thus
inapplicable. In Abe-Abe v. Manta, both petitioners and
respondent had no established right emanating from any
grant by any governmental agency to the use,
appropriation and exploitation of water, while in Tanjay
Water District v. Gabaton, petitioner Tanjay sought to
enjoin the Municipality of Pamplona and its officials from
interfering in the management of the Tanjay Waterworks
System.
On39 the other hand, in the analogous case of Amistoso v.
Ong, petitioner had an approved Water Rights Grant
from the Department of Public Works, Transportation and
Communications. The trial court was not asked to grant
petitioner the right to use but to compel private
respondents to recognize that right. Thus, we declared that
the trial court’s jurisdiction must be upheld where the
issue involved is not the settlement of a water rights
dispute, but the enjoyment of a right 40
to water use for
which a permit was already granted.
In like manner, the present petition calls for the
issuance of an injunction order to prevent private
respondents from extracting and selling ground water
within petitioner’s service area in violation of the latter’s
water permit. There is no dispute regarding petitioner’s
right to ground water within its service area. It is
petitioner’s enjoyment of its rights as a
_______________
36 Atis v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96401, April 6, 1992, 207 SCRA
742.
37Supra note 32.
38Supra note 33.
39Supra, note 21.
40 See also Santos v. Court of Appeals, supra note 29 and Atis v. Court
of Appeals, supra note 36.
261
VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 261

Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals
water district which it seeks to assert against private

respondents.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated June 19, 1995 is SET ASIDE and the case is ordered
REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings,
with costs against respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr.

and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
Judgment set aside, case remanded to trial court.
Note.—What determines the nature of an action are the

allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief
sought. (Bayani vs. Panay Electric Co., Inc., 330 SCRA 759
[2000])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

4.metro Iloilo Water District vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.metro Iloilo Water District vs. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.metro Iloilo Water District vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 454

VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 249

METRO ILOILO WATER DISTRICT, petitioner, vs.

Courts; Jurisdictions; Judicial Questions; A judicial question

Same; Same; It is petitioner’s enjoyment of its rights as a

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metro Iloilo Water District vs. Court of Appeals

manner, the present petition calls for the issuance of an

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

1 Rollo, pp. 27-43.

VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 251

of the Court of Appeals dated

“Ground Water Pumping and Spring Development. Except when the

3 Records, pp. 21-24.

252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

6.—That the respondent has abstracted or withdrawn ground

In their respective answers, private respondents uniformly

6Id., at pp. 34-35.

VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 253

Water Code of the Philippines (Water

254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 255

and the respondents also extracted or withdrew ground water

The Court of 24Appeals denied petitioner’s Motion for

23Supra note 2 at pp. 50-52.

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

unanimously maintain that it is the Water Council which

DID THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO HAVE

Petitioner anchors its claim on Section 31 (now 32) of PD

Sec. 32. Protection of Waters and Facilities of District.—A

By virtue of the above provisions, petitioner states that as

VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 257

In asserting the jurisdiction of the regular courts over its

28Supra note 21.

32 G.R. No. L-4827, May 31, 1979, 90 SCRA 524.

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tion to settle water disputes under the Water Code. They

1. the grant to petitioner of a Conditional Certificate of

34Supra note 3 at pp. 36-37.

VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 259

5. that great damage and prejudice will be suffered by petitioner if

In essence, the petitions focus on the violations incurred by

35 Jorge Gonzales and Panel of Arbitrators v. Climax Mining Ltd.,

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The petitions having raised a judicial question, it follows

VOL. 454, MARCH 31, 2005 261

water district which it seeks to assert against private

Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr.

Judgment set aside, case remanded to trial court.

Note.—What determines the nature of an action are the

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.