GR 186450; (April, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 186450 ; April 14, 2010
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD (NWRB), Petitioner, vs. A. L. ANG NETWORK, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent A.L. Ang Network, Inc. filed an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) with petitioner National Water Resources Board (NWRB) to operate a water service system in Bacolod City. Bacolod City Water District (BACIWA) opposed the application. The NWRB initially granted the CPC but, upon BACIWA’s motion for reconsideration, reversed itself and allowed BACIWA to present evidence. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City against NWRB and BACIWA. The NWRB moved to dismiss, arguing the proper recourse was an appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the Court of Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies’ decisions. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which annulled the RTC’s order, holding that Article 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1067 (the Water Code) grants RTCs jurisdiction over appeals from NWRB decisions. The NWRB filed the present petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction over appeals from, or petitions for certiorari assailing, the decisions, resolutions, or orders of the National Water Resources Board.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that certiorari and appellate jurisdiction over adjudications of the NWRB properly belongs to the Court of Appeals. The Court held that Article 89 of P.D. No. 1067, which provided for appeals from NWRB decisions to the RTC on grounds including grave abuse of discretion, had been rendered inoperative by the passage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980). Section 47 of B.P. Blg. 129 repealed all inconsistent statutes, including Article 89. The legislative intent to repeal was clear, aiming for procedural uniformity by vesting the Court of Appeals with exclusive appellate jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies under Rule 43. While Rule 43’s list of agencies is not exclusive, and the NWRB is not specifically named, the general rule under Section 4, Rule 65 is that petitions for certiorari against acts of a quasi-judicial agency are cognizable only by the Court of Appeals, unless otherwise provided by law. Article 89 of P.D. No. 1067 no longer constitutes such an exception. The Court further clarified that Article 89 provided for an ordinary appeal to the RTC, with “grave abuse of discretion” merely being one ground for such an appeal, not a grant of certiorari jurisdiction. The cited jurisprudence (BF Northwest Homeowners Association and Tanjay Water District) supporting RTC jurisdiction was deemed no longer controlling. Consequently, the Court of Appeals’ decision was reversed, and the RTC’s order dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction was upheld.