Scribd
Upload
587 views2 pages

Metro Iloilo Water District V CA

- The petitioner, a water district, filed petitions for injunction against respondents for extracting and withdrawing ground water within the petitioner's service area without a water permit. - The trial court and Court of Appeals dismissed the petitions, finding the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the National Water Resources Council. - However, the Supreme Court ruled the petitioner's right to groundwater in its service area was not disputed, and the case involved enforcing those rights, not settling water rights. The Court set aside the lower court decisions and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Uploaded by

k santos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
587 views2 pages

Metro Iloilo Water District V CA

- The petitioner, a water district, filed petitions for injunction against respondents for extracting and withdrawing ground water within the petitioner's service area without a water permit. - The trial court and Court of Appeals dismissed the petitions, finding the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the National Water Resources Council. - However, the Supreme Court ruled the petitioner's right to groundwater in its service area was not disputed, and the case involved enforcing those rights, not settling water rights. The Court set aside the lower court decisions and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Uploaded by

k santos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

91.

METRO ILOILO PARTIES INVOLVED Yes, respondents’ actions of extracting and withdrawing ground water violated
WATER DISTRICT  Petitioner : a water district organized under PD 198; was petitioners rights as a water district, thus issuance of injunction is in order.
v CA granted a Conditional Certificate of Conformance by the
Local Water Utilities Administration over service areas of The petitions focus on the violations by respondents by virtue of their alleged
Iloilo City and Municipalities of Ma-asin, Cabatuan, Santa unauthorized extraction and withdrawal of ground water within petitioner's
Barbara, Pavia service area, vis-à-vis petitioner's vested rights as a water district.
 Respondents : CA, Emma Nava, Rufino Sitaca, Rexes Ursua,  While initially it may appear that there is a dimension to the petitions
Carmen Pangantihon, Benito Go, Rebecca Berlin, Luis which pertains to the sphere of the Water Council, i.e., the
Carreon, Charles Kana-An, Gerry Luzuriaga, appropriation of water which the Water Code defines as "the
acquisition of rights over the use of waters or the taking or diverting
PETITIONER FILED 9 PETITIONS FOR INJUNCTION WITH of waters from a natural source in the manner and for any purpose
PRELIMINARY INJUCTION / TRO AGAINST RESPONDENTS: allowed by law," in reality the matter is at most merely collateral to
 For abstracting and withdrawing ground water within the main thrust of the petitions.
petitioner’s territorial jurisdiction, without first securing a
Water Permit from the National Water Resources Council TC was not asked to grant petitioner the right to use but to compel respondents
(NWRC) and for selling water extracted to commercial and to recognize that right.
other consumers  TC’s jurisdiction must be upheld. since the issue involved is not the
 The continuing unauthorized extraction and withdrawal of settlement of a water rights dispute, but the enjoyment of a right to
ground water by respondents without water permit is in water use for which a permit was already granted
violation of the rules of Board of Directors and Art 13 of PD
1067 (Water Code of the Phil) The present petition calls for the issuance of an injunction order to prevent
respondents from extracting and selling ground water within petitioner's
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS service area in violation of the latter's water permit.
 Lack of jurisdiction of the TC; the cases were within the  There is no dispute regarding petitioner's right to ground water within
original and exclusive jurisdiction of the NWRC its service area.
 Some respondents denied having extracted and withdrawn  It is petitioner's enjoyment of its rights as a water district which it
ground water; others admitted having extracted ground water seeks to assert against respondents.
but claimed that they have complied with the requirements for
the water permit application before doing so
CA decision is set aside. Case is ordered remanded to the trial court for further
RULING OF RTC: Dismissed the petitions proceedings.
 Controversy was within the original jurisdiction of the
NWRC; the case involved the appropriation, exploitation and
utilization of water
 Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies

RULING OF CA: Dismissed petitions and denied MR


 Petitioner was granted water rights in Iloilo City and
respondents extracted and withdrew ground water within the
same jurisdiction
 This involves a dispute over the appropriation, utilization,
exploitation of waters, thus NWRC had original jurisdiction

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:
 The extraction or withdrawal of ground water and sale thereof
within its territorial jurisdiction is a violation of its rights as a
water district
 Invoking Amistoso v Ong & Santos v CA : where the dispute
is the enjoyment of a right to water use for which a permit
was already granted, the regular court has jurisdiction and not
the NWRC

RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS:
 Invoking Abe-abe v. Manta & Tanjay Water District v.
Gabaton, : NWRC is exclusively vested with original
jurisdiction to settle water disputes under the Water Code

ISSUES: Whether or not respondents’ actions violate petitioners


rights as a water district and justify an injunction

You might also like