POLOMOLOK
WATER DISTRICT,
Petitioner, -
versus - POLOMOLOK GENERAL CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 162124 Present:
PUNO, c.j.,
Chairperson,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: October 18, 2007 |
x -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
|
|
|
For
the Court’s resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking
to reverse the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (Third Division) dated August 29, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No.
66037.
Polomolok
Water District (PWD), petitioner, is a government-owned and controlled
corporation engaged in producing and supplying potable water to the residents
of the Municipality of Polomolok, South Cotabato.
Polomolok
General Consumers Association, Inc., respondent, is a non-stock, non-profit
corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws.
In
October 1994, petitioner passed PWD Resolution No. 94-023, S. 1994 imposing new and higher water
rates upon its customers.
Respondent
and its members vigorously opposed petitioner’s Resolution, hence, they filed an
administrative complaint with the National Water Resources Board (NWRB). But in an Order dated
On
In
its answer, petitioner claimed that it posted notices at various conspicuous
public places at least one week before the public hearing; that it conducted
two public hearings on March 2 and
On
Meanwhile,
on P60.00 for the first 10 cubic
meters of water consumption or any amount as may be decreed by the trial court
in Civil Case No. 281. The parties also
agreed that payments of water dues would be made directly to petitioner rather
than coursed through respondent; and that the “Memorandum of Agreement” would
be without prejudice to the final outcome of Civil Case No. 281.
However,
both parties violated their stipulations.
Meanwhile,
on
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiff has established sufficient proof of violation of its rights to justify the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in its favor during the pendency of the main suit for declaration of nullity of defendant’s Resolution No. 94-023.
Correspondingly, let therefore a writ of preliminary injunction be issued restraining the defendant from disconnecting the water meter/connection of the plaintiff and its members.
The injunction bond is hereby fixed
at P200,000.00 which the plaintiff will pay to such defendant all
damages that it may sustain by reason of the injunction if the Court should
finally decide that the said plaintiff was not entitled thereto.
The Court Sheriff is hereby directed to serve this Order and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction to the defendant Polomolok Water District immediately upon receipt thereof and to make his return with proceeding thereon.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration, but this was denied by the trial court in
its Order dated
Thereupon,
petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari,
contending that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Orders dated January 18 and
May 10, 2001 directing the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction; that
respondent failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking
judicial relief; and that, therefore, the trial court has no jurisdiction over
Civil Case No. 281.
In
its Decision of
WHEREFORE,
the assailed orders dated
SO ORDERED.
The
Court of Appeals held that the issue before the trial court was the validity of
PWD Resolution No. 94-023, S. 1994 which is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Hence,
the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is inapplicable.
Petitioner
seasonably filed its motion for reconsideration, but this was denied by the
Court of Appeals in its Resolution[3] dated
Hence,
this petition.
Petitioner
contends that based upon the allegations of the complaint, it is the National
Water Rights Board, created under P.D. Nos. 700 and 744, which has jurisdiction
over Civil Case No. 281. Its decision is
appealable to the National Water Resources Council and the latter’s ruling should
be appealed to the Office of the President.
As respondent failed to exhaust all these administrative remedies, its
complaint with the trial court was premature and should have been dismissed.
It
is well settled that jurisdiction of the court is determined on the basis of
the material allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief
prayed for irrespective of whether plaintiff is entitled to such relief.[4] The pertinent allegations in the complaint in
Civil Case No. 281 are:
x
x x
4. Sometime in October 1994, the defendant imposed new water rates, allegedly through PWD Resolution No. 94-023, Series of 1994. A photocopy of the said Resolution is hereto attached as Annex “D.”;
5. PWD Resolution No. 94-023 was passed without complying with the provisions of PD 198, Letter of Instruction No. 700, Par (c), Section 1, as well as Letter of Instruction No. 744, and other related laws;
6. The non-compliance on the requirements of public hearing, posting, publication and other requirements, as required by the said law and Letters of Instruction would render Resolution No. 94-023 null and void;
7. Plaintiff originally filed before this Honorable Court Civil Case No. 115 for damages and Preliminary Injunction, but since the issue in the said case intertwined with the proper rates that will be imposed, the Honorable Court dismissed the said case for lack of cause of action for clearly the issue of water rates pertain to the National Water Rights Board (NWRB, for brevity);
8. The case filed by the plaintiff before the NWRB has already been withdrawn by the plaintiff. A photocopy of the withdrawal is hereto attached as Annex “E” as the NWRB resolved that it has no jurisdiction to pass on the legality of Resolution No. 94-023;
9. The present action is based only on the legality of the adoption of Resolution No. 94-023 (stress supplied);
x
x x
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that a Temporary Restraining Order And/Or Writ of Preliminary Injunction be issued after summary hearing restraining the defendant from disconnecting the water connection of the members of the plaintiff until further orders from the Honorable Court;
AND AFTER DUE NOTICE AND HEARING
1.
Declaring as null and void, PWD Resolution No. 94-023,
Series of 1994 for failure to comply with existing laws and Letters of
Instruction;
2.
Ordering the defendant to pay attorney’s fees in the
amount of P100,000.00;
3.
Ordering the defendant to pay exemplary damages in the
amount of P100,000.00;
4.
Ordering the defendant to pay the cost of suit.
From
respondent’s allegations and relief prayed for in its complaint, the issue
raised is whether PWD Resolution No. 94-023, S. 1994 is valid. Respondent alleged that petitioner did not
comply with the requisites of notice, publication and public hearing. Verily,
the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that the subject of litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129
provides that the Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction in “all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation.”
WHEREFORE,
we DENY the petition. The assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals (Third Division) in CA-G.R. SP No. 66037 is AFFIRMED.
Costs against the petitioner.
SO
ORDERED.
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief
Justice
Chairperson
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 30-41. Ponencia by Associate Justice Regalado E. Maambong and concurred in by Associate Justice Eubolo G. Verzola (now deceased) and Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr.
[2]
[3]
[4] Ramos v. Stateland Investment Corp., G.R. No. 161973, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 726, 737, citing Morta, Sr. v. Ocidental, 308 SCRA 167 (1999).