G.R. No. L-25573 October 11, 1968
NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. HON. MINERVA I. PIGUING, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN FERNANDO, THE CITY OF ANGELES, THE MUNICIPALITY OF GUAGUA and THE MUNICIPALITY OF MACABEBE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner NAWASA, purporting to act under Republic Act No. 1383, took over the possession, operation, and control of the waterworks systems of the respondent municipal corporations (Municipalities of San Fernando, Guagua, Macabebe, and the City of Angeles) in 1958 without paying compensation. The municipal corporations filed a civil case (No. 2026) in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga on September 30, 1961, to recover their waterworks systems and damages, and prayed for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restrain NAWASA from enforcing R.A. No. 1383 during the pendency of the case. After pre-trial, it was agreed that the sole issue was the fair and reasonable value of the properties, to be determined through inventory and appraisal. The appraisal committee submitted its report. On December 29, 1965, respondent Judge Piguing issued an order granting the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, finding that NAWASA’s continuous control without paying just compensation was detrimental to the municipal corporations’ rights and that the Supreme Court had previously declared R.A. No. 1383 unconstitutional as it effects a transfer of dominion akin to expropriation without payment. On January 14, 1966, the court issued another order, noting NAWASA’s counsel’s assurance that it could deposit the net book value of the systems within 72 hours (specifying the amounts: San Fernando – P382,608.48; Angeles – P303,745.94; Guagua – P193,078.15; Macabebe – P115,942.65), and suspended the writ for 72 hours to allow the deposit, failing which the writ would be implemented. NAWASA then filed this certiorari petition, alleging grave abuse of discretion, arguing it was always agreeable to pay, that the injunction upset the status quo of over four years, that as a possessor in good faith it should be paid for improvements, and that the deposit obligation was unreasonable.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the orders dated December 29, 1965, and January 14, 1966, granting a preliminary mandatory injunction and ordering the deposit of the net book value of the waterworks systems.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction. The Court held that: (1) the proprietary rights of the municipal corporations to the waterworks systems were admitted; (2) their right to compensation and NAWASA’s obligation to pay were also admitted; (3) it was undisputed that NAWASA took the properties without payment; (4) the Supreme Court had declared R.A. No. 1383 unconstitutional as early as August 31, 1959, for authorizing the taking of local waterworks systems without providing for effective payment of just compensation; (5) the amounts ordered for deposit were the admitted book value of the properties; and (6) NAWASA’s counsel had expressed readiness to make the deposit within the specified period. Consequently, the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court was dissolved.