BF Homes, Inc. v. National Water Resources Council
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: BF Homes, Inc., a residential subdivision owner and operator, constructed water distribution systems in its subdivisions. The company obtained a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for its Las Piñas subdivision's water system and sought to transfer this certificate to its co-petitioner, Philippine Water-Works and Construction Corporation (PWCC). Additionally, BF Homes, Inc. applied to increase water rates for its B.F. Homes Parañaque subdivision, an increase allegedly unopposed by residents who needed it to cover operational costs, specifically electricity bills. 2. Procedural History: Both applications, the transfer of the Las Piñas certificate and the rate increase for Parañaque, remained unacted upon by the National Water Resources Council (NWRC) for extended periods. Consequently, BF Homes, Inc. filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals, seeking to compel the NWRC to act on these pending matters. The Court of Appeals, however, dismissed the petition in two separate resolutions, ruling that mandamus would not lie to compel the NWRC to act on matters that were not purely ministerial but involved the exercise of discretion. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, BF Homes, Inc. and PWCC, are before this Court via a petition for review, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing their mandamus petition. They contend that while mandamus cannot compel a discretionary act to be performed in a specific manner, it can compel the NWRC to act on their applications at all, given the prolonged and unexplained inaction. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel the NWRC to consider and deliberate upon their applications for the transfer of the certificate and the rate increase, and to render a decision, whether approval or disapproval, in accordance with law and the best interests of the community.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for mandamus. Whether mandamus will lie to compel the National Water Resources Council to act on pending applications for transfer of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and for an increase in water rates.
Ruling
The Petition for Review is GRANTED due course, and the Resolutions dated February 16, 1987, and May 28, 1987, of the respondent appellate court are SET ASIDE. A Writ of mandamus is issued directly against the respondent Council commanding it forthwith to act upon petitioner's Application for Increase in Water Rates in BF Homes Parañaque (NWRC Case No. 78-037) and on petitioner's Application for Transfer of Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience in B.F. Homes Las Piñas (NWRC Case No. 82-161).
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for mandamus: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in its ruling. The appellate court's dismissal was based on the premise that mandamus will not issue to compel the performance of discretionary duties. However, the Supreme Court clarified that while mandamus cannot control the exercise of discretion, it can compel an agency to act on matters pending before it, especially when such inaction has persisted for an unreasonable period, causing prejudice to the applicant. The Court cited established doctrine that mandamus is available to compel the exercise of jurisdiction or discretion, not to control the manner of its exercise. On the issue of whether mandamus will lie to compel the National Water Resources Council to act on pending applications: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The Court distinguished between compelling an agency to act in a specific way (which is beyond the scope of mandamus for discretionary acts) and compelling an agency to act at all. The petitioners were not seeking to compel the NWRC to approve their applications but rather to consider and deliberate upon them, examining the evidence and making a decision in accordance with law and jurisprudence. The prolonged inaction of the NWRC on the applications, without explanation and causing substantial prejudice to hundreds of families, warranted the issuance of the writ of mandamus to compel the NWRC to exercise its discretion and act on the applications. The Court noted that the NWRC had failed to inform the petitioner of any need for additional data, further supporting the claim of unreasonable delay.
Main Doctrine
A writ of mandamus may not be issued to control the performance of discretionary, non-ministerial duties, but it can compel a body to act on pending applications, either approving or disapproving them, in accordance with law and jurisprudence, when it has failed to act for an unreasonable period of time.