Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22318)
Facts:
Metropolitan Water District v. Public Utility Commission, G.R. No. L-22318, October 15, 1924, the Supreme Court, Street, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner is the Metropolitan Water District (a public corporation created by Act No. 2832); the respondent is the Public Utility Commission (acting under Act No. 3108). The District was created to supply water and maintain sewerage for Manila and nearby municipalities, was vested with possession and control of distribution and sewerage systems, and was empowered to fix rates (see Act No. 2832, sec. 9 and sec. 2, subsecs. (e), (f) and (h)).Prior practice required consumers to pay for material and labor of service pipes and meters; repairs and meter work were charged proportionately. To avoid repeated consumer complaints, the District Board adopted a different scheme by adopting Resolution No. 2, series of 1922, which made the District responsible for inspection and ordinary repairs (performed at District expense) while imposing a fixed annual maintenance charge by meter size on each concessioner; replacement of unserviceable meters remained at the concessioner's expense. The resolution took effect April 1, 1922.
Consumers’ complaints diminished in practice, but the Public Utility Commission questioned the resolution’s validity and ordered the District to show cause. After the District initially questioned the Commission’s jurisdiction, a hearing was held; on March 21, 1924 the Commissioner declared Resolution No. 2 ultra vires and enj...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Public Utility Commission have authority to review and control rates and regulations promulgated by the Metropolitan Water District under Act No. 3108?
- If the Commission has such authority, was the Commission correct in annulling Resolution No. 2, series of 1922, as ultra v...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)