Title
Metropolitan Cebu Water District vs. Adala
Case
G.R. No. 168914
Decision Date
Jul 4, 2007
Margarita Adala sought a CPC to operate a waterworks system, opposed by MCWD citing P.D. 198. SC ruled Section 47 unconstitutional, upholding NWRB's CPC grant.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 168914)

Background and Initial Proceedings

On October 24, 2002, Margarita A. Adala applied to the NWRB for a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to operate and maintain a waterworks system in the sitios of San Vicente, Fatima, and Sambag in Barangay Bulacao, Cebu City. During the initial hearing on December 16, 2002, the MCWD, a government-owned and controlled corporation created under Presidential Decree No. 198, opposed Adala's application. Despite MCWD's formal opposition being mailed prior to the hearing, the NWRB had not yet received it that day. Adala's counsel presented a copy of MCWD's opposition to the hearing officer.

MCWD's opposition was based on three main grounds: lack of consent from its Board of Directors for the issuance of the franchise, potential interference with MCWD's water supply, and the assertion that local residents were adequately served by MCWD. After reviewing the evidence and conducting an ocular inspection, the NWRB dismissed MCWD's opposition on September 22, 2003, stating it lacked merit and ruled in favor of Adala, granting her a CPC for a five-year period, with specified rates for water consumption.

RTC Decision and Appeal

MCWD's motion for reconsideration to the NWRB was denied on May 17, 2004. Consequently, MCWD appealed to the RTC of Cebu City, which upheld the NWRB's decision on February 10, 2005, and denied MCWD’s motion for reconsideration on May 13, 2005. This initiated MCWD's current petition for review, which presents two primary questions of law.

Key Legal Issues

The first question centers on whether the consent of the MCWD's Board of Directors is a prerequisite for the NWRB to grant a CPC. The second issue concerns the interpretation of the term "franchise" under Section 47 of P.D. 198, probing whether it refers solely to franchises granted through congressional legislation or also includes CPCs issued by the NWRB.

Procedural Grounds and Authority

Respondent Adala challenges the petition on procedural grounds, arguing that MCWD's General Manager, Engineer Armando H. Paredes, lacked specific authorization to file the petition. Drawing from established jurisprudence, Adala asserts that without a board resolution explicitly granting Paredes authorization for this particular instance, the petition should be dismissed.

MCWD contends that such an authorization exists, as reflected in Board of Directors Resolution No. 015-2004, which grants Paredes the authority to file cases on behalf of the corporation. The court finds that this resolution did not expressly empower Paredes to sign verifications and certifications related to forum shopping, potentially undermining the validity of the petition.

Interpretation of "Franchise"

MCWD argues that under Section 47 of P.D. 198, consent by the Board of Directors is a sine qua non condition for granting a CPC, extending the definition of "franchise" to include CPCs issued by the NWRB. In contrast, Adala posits that the term specifically applies only to franchises originating from congressional legislation. The NWRB resolution characterizes a CPC simply as a formal authority for operating a utility for which a franchise is not legally required.

The court acknowledges the implications of a narrow interpretation that might permit CPCs to be granted without BOd consent, effectively rendering the exclusive franchise concept meaningless. Drawing from past judgments, the court interprets "franchise" broadly, i

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.