Case Digest (G.R. No. 175550)
Facts:
Dasmarinas Water District v. Monterey Foods Corporation, G.R. No. 175550, September 17, 2008, Supreme Court First Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court.
Monterey Foods Corporation (respondent) is a domestic corporation that was issued water permit nos. 17779 and 17780 by the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) for two deep wells in Barangay Langcaan, Dasmariñas, Cavite; the water was used solely for respondent’s business. Dasmarinas Water District (petitioner) is a government-owned and controlled water district organized under PD 198.
On March 30, 2004 petitioner filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 90 of Imus, Cavite (Civil Case No. 0113-04), seeking enforcement of a production assessment under Section 39 of PD 198 — monthly assessments allegedly due from respondent for operation of its two wells, plus expenses and attorney’s fees. On June 8, 2004 respondent moved to dismiss in the RTC, arguing lack of jurisdiction because, under PD 1067 (the Water Code), the NWRB has original jurisdiction over water disputes.
The RTC denied the motion to dismiss in an April 28, 2005 order and denied reconsideration on June 8, 2005. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 90855, also seeking injunctive relief. In a decision promulgated May 26, 2006 (Special Fourth Division, penned by Veloso, J., with Tolentino and Peralta, JJ., concurring), the CA granted respondent’s petition and dismissed petitioner’s complaint, holding that disputes “relating to appropriation, utilization, exploitation, development, control, conservation and protection of waters” fall under the original jurisdiction of the NWRB under Arts. 3(d), 88 and 89 of PD 1067, and that petitioner could not impose assessments without NWRB approval. A CA resolution of November 21, 2006 followed.
Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 45 (also invoking Rule 65), c...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s complaint for production assessments under Section 39 of PD 198, or did the NWRB have original jurisdiction under PD 1067?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in deciding the substantive question whether petitioner had authority to impose production assessments when that issue had not been resolved by the RTC?
- Could respondent collaterally attack the constitutionality of Sectio...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)