GR 157494; (December, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157494, December 10, 2004
BACOLOD CITY WATER DISTRICT, petitioner, vs. THE HON. EMMA C. LABAYEN, Presiding Judge, RTC of Bacolod City, Br. 46 and the City of Bacolod, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Bacolod City Water District (BACIWA), a government-owned and controlled corporation, published a schedule of automatic water rate adjustments to take effect in 1999. Respondent City of Bacolod filed a case for Injunction with a Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Preliminary Mandatory Injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The City alleged the rate increase violated due process as no public hearing was conducted as required. The RTC issued an order for the parties to submit memoranda on jurisdiction and the public hearing issue. BACIWA filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) had primary jurisdiction over rate disputes.
After nearly seven months of inactivity, the City filed an Urgent Motion for a TRO. The RTC, on the same day the motion was heard, issued a 20-day TRO to stop the implementation of the year 2000 rate increase. BACIWA filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and Dissolution of the TRO. The RTC later denied BACIWA’s Motion to Dismiss and found the motion to dissolve the TRO moot, as BACIWA had already complied with it. BACIWA filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. It then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the temporary restraining order.
RULING
Yes, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court ruled that the issuance of the TRO was procedurally infirm and in violation of the Rules of Court. Under Section 5, Rule 58, a court may issue an ex parte TRO only if it is proven by affidavits or a verified application that great or irreparable injury would occur before a hearing on notice can be held. The RTC issued the TRO on the very day the City’s Urgent Motion was set for hearing, without any prior showing through sworn statements that such extreme injury was imminent. The court simply heard the motion and immediately issued the restraining order, bypassing the stringent requirement for ex parte issuance.
Furthermore, the TRO was substantively flawed. The core issue involved the propriety of a water rate increase by a public utility, a matter initially falling under the primary jurisdiction of the administrative agency, the LWUA, which possesses specialized competence. The RTC should have deferred to this administrative machinery. By issuing the TRO, the court prematurely interfered with a dispute that should have first undergone administrative resolution. The combination of this procedural shortcut and the disregard for the doctrine of primary jurisdiction constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, amounting to grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.