Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Metro Iloilo Water District v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Loreen Danao
    Metro Iloilo Waters District filed petitions for injunction against private respondents for extracting groundwater within MIWD's territory without permits. The private respondents denied extracting water but admitted to extracting water from their private property. The trial court and Court of Appeals dismissed the petitions, saying the issue was under the jurisdiction of the National Water Resource Council. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial courts did have jurisdiction over the petitions for injunction, as the main issue was whether the private respondents' extraction violated MIWD's rights as a water district, which raises a judicial question.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Metro Iloilo Water District v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Loreen Danao
    1K views2 pages
    Metro Iloilo Waters District filed petitions for injunction against private respondents for extracting groundwater within MIWD's territory without permits. The private respondents denied extracting water but admitted to extracting water from their private property. The trial court and Court of Appeals dismissed the petitions, saying the issue was under the jurisdiction of the National Water Resource Council. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial courts did have jurisdiction over the petitions for injunction, as the main issue was whether the private respondents' extraction violated MIWD's rights as a water district, which raises a judicial question.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Metro Iloilo Waters District filed petitions for injunction against private respondents for extracting groundwater within MIWD's territory without permits. The private respondents denied extracting water but admitted to extracting water from their private property. The trial court and Court of Appeals dismissed the petitions, saying the issue was under the jurisdiction of the National Water Resource Council. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial courts did have jurisdiction over the petitions for injunction, as the main issue was whether the private respondents' extraction violated MIWD's rights as a water district, which raises a judicial question.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Metro Iloilo Water District v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Loreen Danao
    Metro Iloilo Waters District filed petitions for injunction against private respondents for extracting groundwater within MIWD's territory without permits. The private respondents denied extracting water but admitted to extracting water from their private property. The trial court and Court of Appeals dismissed the petitions, saying the issue was under the jurisdiction of the National Water Resource Council. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial courts did have jurisdiction over the petitions for injunction, as the main issue was whether the private respondents' extraction violated MIWD's rights as a water district, which raises a judicial question.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Metro Iloilo Water District v. CA G.R. No.

    122855 March 31, 2005 Facts:

    Metro Iloilo Waters District (MIWD) is a water district organized under the provisions of Presidential
    Decree No. 198 (P.D. 198), whose service areas encompass the entire territorial areas of Iloilo City and the
    Municipalities of Ma-asin, Cabanatuan, Santa Barbara and Pavia.

    Between April and May of 1993, petitioner filed nine (9) individual yet identical petitions for injunction
    with prayer for preliminary injunction and / or temporary restraining order against private respondents
    Nava et. al. on the following grounds:

    a. Having abstracted or withdrawn ground water within the territorial jurisdiction of the
    petitioner without first securing a Water Permit from the National Water Resources
    Council

    b. Unauthorized extraction or withdrawal of ground water by the respondent without the


    necessary permit therefore is in violation of the rules and regulations prescribed by the
    Board of Directors of the petitioner

    c. The act of the respondent in continuing to extract or withdraw groundwater without a


    Water Permit therefore, is in violation of Art. XIII of P.D. 1067 of the Water Code of the
    Philippines, and unless such act is restrained, will definitely cause great loss upon the
    petitioner as a Water District

    Private respondents denied having extracted or withdrawn water from the ground; as well as having
    constructed any waterworks in their area. However, they admitted to the extraction of water from the
    ground but only in their private property, and claimed that they complied with the requirements for
    approval of water permit.

    The RTC dismissed the petitions, saying that the issue is within the jurisdiction of the National Water
    Resource Council (NWRC) under PD 1067 involving, as it did, the appropriation, exploitation and utilization
    of water, and factual issues which were within the NWRC's competence. In addition, the RTC held that
    MIWD failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the doctrine of "primary administrative
    jurisdiction. This ruling was affirmed by the CA.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the trial courts have jurisdiction in this case

    Ruling:

    Yes. The petitions filed before the trial court were for the issuance of an injunction order for Nava, et al.
    to cease and desist from extracting or withdrawing water from MIWD's well and from selling the same
    within its service areas. In essence, the petitions focus on the violations incurred by Nava, et al. by virtue
    of their alleged unauthorized extraction and withdrawal of groundwater within MIWD's service area, vis-
    a vis MIWD's vested rights as a water district. At issue is whether Nava, et al.'s extraction and sale of
    groundwater within MIWD's service area violated MIWD's rights as a water district. It is at once obvious
    that the petitions raise a judicial question.
    The issue on "the acquisition of rights over the use of waters or the taking or diverting of waters from a
    natural source in the manner and for any purpose allowed by law," which would be under the jurisdiction
    of the Council, is, in reality the matter is at most merely collateral to the main thrust of the petitions.

    You might also like