Case Digest (G.R. No. 197146)
Facts:
Hon. Michael L. Rama, et al. v. Hon. Gilbert P. Moises, G.R. No. 197146, December 06, 2016, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.By virtue of Presidential Decree No. 198 (the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973), the Metro Cebu Water District (MCWD) was formed in 1974 to operate and manage waterworks serving Cebu City, Mandaue, Lapu‑Lapu, Talisay and several municipalities. Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198 designates the “appointing authority” for local water district boards: if more than 75% of active service connections are within a single city/municipality, that city’s mayor appoints; otherwise the provincial governor appoints.
From 1974 until 2002, the Mayor of Cebu City consistently appointed MCWD directors. In July 2002 the Governor of Cebu wrote MCWD claiming the appointing power because MCWD connections within Cebu City had fallen below 75%. After two board vacancies, the Governor and the Cebu City Mayor made joint appointments; one appointee, Atty. Sitoy, later vacated his seat upon election as municipal mayor, and Mayor Tomas Osmeña appointed Joel Mari S. Yu on February 22, 2008.
The Province challenged Yu’s appointment. Governor Gwendolyn F. Garcia filed suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Cebu City (Civil Case No. CEB‑34459) seeking annulment and declaratory relief on the proper appointing authority under Section 3(b). The RTC, after full memoranda and briefing, declared Yu’s appointment illegal and void on November 16, 2010 and held that Section 3(b) did not violate the Constitution or the Local Government Code. The RTC found that MCWD’s Cebu City connections (61.28%) were below the 75% threshold and that the appointing power therefore vested in the Governor; motions for reconsideration were denied.
Petitioners (Mayor Osmeña, MCWD and others) filed a special civil action for certiorari directly to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 197146), contending (inter alia) that the RTC abdicated its duty to adjudicate constitutionality, that Secti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the controversy moot and academic by reason of respondent Yu’s term having expired?
- Did the RTC abdicate its constitutional duty and render a void judgment by failing to properly decide the constitutionality of Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198?
- Is Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198 superseded or rendered inconsistent by the 1987 Constitution and the 1991 Local Government Code (RA No. 7160) as applied to Highly Urbanized Cities (HUCs) and certain component cities?
- Does Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198, as applied to HUCs like Cebu City, violate subs...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)