FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 186450. April 08, 2010 ]

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD (NWRB), PETITIONER, VS.
A. L. ANG NETWORK, INC., RESPONDENT.

DECISION

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

In issue is whether Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction over appeals from decisions,
resolutions or orders of the National Water Resources Board (petitioner).

A.L. Ang Network (respondent) filed on January 23, 2003 an application for a Certificate of
Public Convenience (CPC) with petitioner to operate and maintain a water service system in
Alijis, Bacolod City.

Bacolod City Water District (BACIWA) opposed respondent's application on the ground that
it is the only government agency authorized to operate a water service system within the city.
[1]

By Decision of August 20, 2003, petitioner granted respondent's CPC application. BACIWA
moved to have the decision reconsidered, contending that its right to due process was violated
when it was not allowed to present evidence in support of its opposition.[2]

Petitioner reconsidered its Decision and allowed BACIWA to present evidence,[3] drawing
respondent to file a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod
City against petitioner and BACIWA. Petitioner moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that
the proper recourse of respondent was to the Court of Appeals, citing Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court.

The RTC, by Order of April 15, 2005,[4] dismissed respondent's petition for lack of
jurisdiction, holding that it is the Court of Appeals which has "exclusive appellate jurisdiction
over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, order[s] or awards of . . . quasi-judicial
agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commission[s] . . . except those within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court . . . ." Thus the RTC explained:

Art. 89 of P.D. 1067 having been long repealed by BP 129, as amended, which has
effectively and explicitly removed the Regional Trial Courts' appellate jurisdiction over the
decisions, resolutions, order[s] or awards of quasi-judicial agencies such as [petitioner]
NWRB, and vested with the Court of Appeals, very clearly now, this Court has no
jurisdiction over this instant petition.

Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, respondent filed a petition for certiorari at
the Court of Appeals, which, by Decision of January 25, 2008,[5] annulled and set aside the
RTC April 15, 2005, holding that it is the RTC which has jurisdiction over appeals from
petitioner's decisions. Thus the appellate court discoursed.

In the analogous case of BF Northwest Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. Intermediate

Appellate Court[,] the Supreme Court . . . categorically pronounced the RTC's jurisdiction
over appeals from the decisions of the NWRB consistent with Article 89 of P.D. No. 1067
and ratiocinated in this wise:
x x x x.

The logical conclusion, therefore, is that jurisdiction over actions for annulment of NWRC
decisions lies with the Regional Trial Courts, particularly, when we take note of the fact that
the appellate jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over NWRC decisions covers such
broad and all embracing grounds as grave abuse of discretion, questions of law, and questions
of fact and law (Art. 89, P.D. No. 1067). This conclusion is also in keeping with the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, which vests Regional Trial Courts with original jurisdiction to
issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, etc. (Sec. 21

, B.P. Blg. 129) relating to acts or omissions of an inferior court (Sec. 4, Rule 65, Rules of
[1]

Court).

x x x x.

Similarly, in Tanjay Water District vs. Pedro Gabaton, the Supreme Court conformably
ruled, viz:

"Inasmuch as Civil Case No. 8144 involves the appropriation, utilization and control of
water, We hold that the jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute in the first instance,
pertains to the Water Resources Council as provided in PD No. 1067 which is the special law
on the subject. The Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) has only appellate
jurisdiction over the case."

Based on the foregoing jurisprudence, there is no doubt that [petitioner] NWRB is mistaken
in its assertion. As no repeal is expressly made, Article 89 of P.D. No. 1067 is certainly
meant to be an exception to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over appeals or
petitions for certiorari of the decisions of quasi-judicial bodies. This finds harmony with
Paragraph 2, Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is stated that, "If it involves
the acts of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the
petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals." Evidently, not all
petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 involving the decisions of quasi-judicial agencies must
be filed with the Court of Appeals. The rule admits of some exceptions as plainly provided by
the phrase "unless otherwise provided by law or these rules" and Article 89 of P.D. No. 1067
is verily an example of these exceptions. (italics and emphasis partly in the original;
underscoring supplied)

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration having been denied by the appellate court by
Resolution of February 9, 2009,[6] petitioner filed the present petition for review, contending
that:
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS NO CERTIORARI JURISDICTION OVER THE
[PETITIONER] SINCE SECTION 89, PD NO. 1067, REGARDING APPEALS, HAS
BEEN SUPERSEDED AND REPEALED BY [BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG] 129 AND
THE RULES OF COURT. FURTHERMORE, PD 1067 ITSELF DOES NOT
CONTEMPLATE THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE
CERTIORARI JURISDICTION OVER THE [PETITIONER]. [7] (underscoring supplied)

Petitioner maintains that the RTC does not have jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari and
prohibition to annul or modify its acts or omissions as a quasi-judicial agency. Citing Section
4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, petitioner contends that there is no law or rule which
requires the filing of a petition for certiorari over its acts or omissions in any other court or
tribunal other than the Court of Appeals.[8]

Petitioner goes on to fault the appellate court in holding that Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (BP
129) or the Judiciary Reorganization Act did not expressly repeal Article 89 of Presidential
Decree No. 1067 (PD 1067) otherwise known as the Water Code of the Philippines.[9]

Respondent, on the other hand, maintains the correctness of the assailed decision of the
appellate court.

The petition is impressed with merit.

Section 9 (1) of BP 129 granted the Court of Appeals (then known as the Intermediate
Appellate Court) original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
habeas corpus and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction.[10]

Since the appellate court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies
under Rule 43[11] of the Rules of Court, petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus against the acts and omissions of quasi-judicial agencies, like petitioner, should be
filed with it. This is what Rule 65 of the Rules imposes for procedural uniformity. The only
exception to this instruction is when the law or the Rules itself directs otherwise, as cited in
Section 4, Rule 65.[12] The appellate court's construction that Article 89 of PD 1067, which
reads:

ART. 89. The decisions of the [NWRB] on water rights controversies may be appealed to
the [RTC] of the province where the subject matter of the controversy is situated within
fifteen (15) days from the date the party appealing receives a copy of the decision, on any of
the following grounds: (1) grave abuse of discretion; (2) question of law; and (3) questions
of fact and law (emphasis and underscoring supplied),

is such an exception, is erroneous.

Article 89 of PD 1067 had long been rendered inoperative by the passage of BP 129.
Aside from delineating the jurisdictions of the Court of Appeals and the RTCs, Section 47 of
BP 129 repealed or modified:

x x x. [t]he provisions of Republic Act No. 296, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of
1948, as amended, of Republic Act No. 5179, as amended, of the Rules of Court, and of all
other statutes, letters of instructions and general orders or parts thereof, inconsistent
with the provisions of this Act x x x. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The general repealing clause under Section 47 "predicates the intended repeal under the
condition that a substantial conflict must be found in existing and prior acts."[13]

In enacting BP 129, the Batasang Pambansa was presumed to have knowledge of the
provision of Article 89 of P.D. No. 1067 and to have intended to change it.[14] The legislative
intent to repeal Article 89 is clear and manifest given the scope and purpose of BP 129, one
of which is to provide a homogeneous procedure for the review of adjudications of quasi-
judicial entities to the Court of Appeals.

More importantly, what Article 89 of PD 1067 conferred to the RTC was the power of review
on appeal the decisions of petitioner. It appears that the appellate court gave significant
consideration to the ground of "grave abuse of discretion" to thus hold that the RTC has
certiorari jurisdiction over petitioner's decisions. A reading of said Article 89 shows,
however, that it only made "grave abuse of discretion" as another ground to invoke in an
ordinary appeal to the RTC. Indeed, the provision was unique to the Water Code at the time
of its application in 1976.

The issuance of BP 129, specifically Section 9 (Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, then
known as Intermediate Appellate Court), and the subsequent formulation of the Rules,
clarified and delineated the appellate and certiorari jurisdictions of the Court of Appeals over
adjudications of quasi-judicial bodies. Grave abuse of discretion may be invoked before the
appellate court as a ground for an error of jurisdiction.

It bears noting that, in the present case, respondent assailed petitioner's order via certiorari
before the RTC, invoking grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction as ground-basis thereof. In other words, it invoked such ground not for an error of
judgment.

While Section 9 (3) of BP 129[15] and Section 1 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court[16] does not
list petitioner as "among" the quasi-judicial agencies whose final judgments, orders,
resolutions or awards are appealable to the appellate court, it is non sequitur to hold that the
Court of Appeals has no appellate jurisdiction over petitioner's judgments, orders, resolutions
or awards. It is settled that the list of quasi-judicial agencies specifically mentioned in Rule
43 is not meant to be exclusive.[17] The employment of the word "among" clearly instructs so.

BF Northwest Homeowners Association v. Intermediate Appellate Court, [18] a 1987 case cited
by the appellate court to support its ruling that RTCs have jurisdiction over judgments,
orders, resolutions or awards of petitioner, is no longer controlling in light of the definitive
instruction of Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Tanjay Water District v. Gabaton [19] is not in point either as the issue raised therein was
which between the RTC and the then National Water Resources Council had jurisdiction over
disputes in the appropriation, utilization and control of water.

In fine , certiorari and appellate jurisdiction over adjudications of petitioner properly

belongs to the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The April 15, 2005 Order of the Regional Trial Court of
Bacolod City dismissing petitioner's petition for lack of jurisdiction is UPHELD.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

[1]
Rollo, pp. 16-17.
[2]
Id. at 18.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Id. at 70-71.

Id. at 60-69. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla with Associate Justices
[5]

Isaias P. Dicdican and Franchito N. Diamante.

[6]
Id. at 81-82.
[7]
Id. at 21.
[8]
Id. at 26-32.
[9]
Id. at 38-39.
[10]
SEC. 9. Jurisdiction.--The [Court of Appeals] shall exercise:

(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction.;

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial
Courts; and

(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or
awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commissions, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
accordance with the Constitution, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the
third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary
Act of 1948.

x x x x.
[11]
SECTION 1. Scope.--This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of
the Court of Tax Appeals* and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or
authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among
these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals,
Securities and Exchange Commission,** Office of the President, Land Registration
Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents,
Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy
Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian
Reform Under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees
Compensation Commission, Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance Commission,
Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.

x x x x (underscoring supplied)
[12]
SEC. 4. When and where to file the petition. x x x .

If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or of a corporation, a

board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed
with the Court of Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the
court's appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts of a quasi-judicial agency, unless
otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable
only by the Court of Appeals.

x x x x. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

[13]
Mecano v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 103982, 216 SCRA 500, 505 (1992).
[14]
Vide: Magno v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 147904, 390 SCRA 495, 500 (2002).
[15]
Supra note 10.
[16]
Supra note 11.

Vide: United Coconut Planters Bank v. E. Ganzon, Inc, G.R. Nos. 168859 and 168897,
[17]

June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 321, 337; Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon, 437 Phil. 347,
357 (2002); Sy v. COSLAP, 417 Phil. 378, 393-394 (2001); and Metro Construction, Inc. v.
Chatham Properties, Inc., 418 Phil. 176, 203 (2001).
[18]
G.R. No. 72370, 234 Phil. 537 (1987).
[19]
G.R. No. 63742, 254 Phil. 253 (1989).