National Waterworks v. Piguing
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) took over the possession, operation, and control of the waterworks systems of the Municipalities of San Fernando, Guagua, Macabebe, and the City of Angeles (formerly Municipality of Angeles) in 1958, pursuant to Republic Act No. 1383, without paying any compensation. Procedural History: On September 30, 1961, the municipal corporations commenced Civil Case No. 2026 against NAWASA to recover their waterworks systems and damages, and to restrain NAWASA from enforcing Republic Act No. 1383. A pre-trial was held on March 16, 1963, where parties agreed that the sole issue was the fair and reasonable value of the properties, and that inventories and an appraisal committee would be utilized. On December 29, 1965, the respondent Judge issued an order granting a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, enjoining NAWASA from administering, supervising, operating, and controlling the waterworks systems until further order. On January 14, 1966, the respondent Judge issued another order suspending the writ for seventy-two (72) hours to allow NAWASA to deposit the net book value of the waterworks systems, as agreed upon during pre-trial and recommended by the appraisal committee. The Petition: NAWASA filed the present action for certiorari with preliminary injunction, alleging that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the questioned orders. NAWASA contended that it was agreeable to pay the amounts claimed, that the writ of injunction upset the status quo, that it could not be deprived of possession without payment for improvements, and that the obligation to deposit was unreasonable.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion or acted in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the orders for a Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and requiring the deposit of the book value of the waterworks systems.
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit. The Supreme Court dismissed the case and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court, with costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found that the respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion because the proprietary rights of the municipal corporations to the waterworks systems were admitted. The Court emphasized that NAWASA's obligation to pay compensation was undisputed, yet it had held the properties for years without making such payment. Applying the precedent in City of Cebu v. NAWASA (G.R. No. L-12892, August 31, 1959), the Court reiterated that Republic Act No. 1383 (RA 1383) is unconstitutional insofar as it allows the taking of local waterworks without providing for effective payment of just compensation. Furthermore, the amounts set in the order of January 14, 1966, were based on the net book value agreed upon by the parties and recommended by an appraisal committee. The Court also noted that NAWASA's own counsel had expressed a readiness and willingness to make the deposit within the specified period during the lower court proceedings. Consequently, the trial court acted within its authority to protect the respondent municipal corporations' rights of dominion by issuing the Preliminary Mandatory Injunction (PMI) and the deposit order.
Main Doctrine
A writ of certiorari may be issued against orders of a lower court that are issued with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction. In this case, the lower court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restrain the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) from operating waterworks systems without just compensation, especially when NAWASA had admitted the proprietary rights of the municipal corporations and its obligation to pay compensation, and had previously been declared unconstitutional in its entirety.