[ G.R. No. 186450. April 08, 2010 ] 632 Phil. 22
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 186450. April 08, 2010 ]
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD (NWRB), PETITIONER, VS. A. L. ANG NETWORK, INC., RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
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Art. 89 of P.D. 1067 having been long repealed by BP 129, as amended, which has effectively and explicitly removed the Regional Trial Courts’ appellate jurisdiction over the decisions, resolutions, order[s]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