GR 132209; (April, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132209 ; April 29, 2005
CARLOS C. BUENDIA, Petitioner, vs. CITY OF ILIGAN, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Carlos Buendia filed applications with the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) for water permits to appropriate water from a spring within his property. No timely protests were filed. Consequently, the NWRB, after evaluation, issued the water permits in his favor. Almost five months after the issuance, respondent City of Iligan filed an “Opposition and/or Appeal” with the NWRB, contesting the permits. The NWRB dismissed this filing. The “Opposition” was dismissed for being filed out of time, and the “Appeal” was dismissed because, in the absence of a seasonably filed protest, no water rights controversy arose from which an appeal could be taken.
The City of Iligan did not move for reconsideration or pursue an administrative appeal. Instead, it filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging the NWRB order was issued with grave abuse of discretion. The RTC, while agreeing the opposition was procedurally infirm, granted the petition and set aside the NWRB order. The RTC ruled that the City had a prior vested right to the water by acquisitive prescription, which the NWRB failed to consider.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly granted the Petition for Certiorari and annulled the NWRB Order dated March 10, 1994.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the RTC decision and reinstated the NWRB order. The RTC committed reversible error in granting the writ of certiorari. A writ of certiorari requires a showing that the tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The NWRB committed no such abuse. Its dismissal of the untimely opposition was a correct application of procedural rules. The NWRB cannot be faulted for not considering a claim of acquisitive prescription that was never formally raised before it as a protest to the application. The City’s failure to file a timely protest meant no water rights controversy was presented for the NWRB to adjudicate.
Furthermore, the City of Iligan failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing the NWRB order to the Department Secretary as mandated by law. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lapsed appeal. The RTC also erred in substantively ruling on the City’s claim of acquisitive prescription. That claim pertained to a water right, a matter within the primary and exclusive original jurisdiction of the NWRB, not the RTC. The RTC, in a certiorari proceeding, exceeded its jurisdiction by making a factual determination on the merits of the water right itself. The NWRB order was thus affirmed.