1. Metro Iloilo Water District Distr ict vs. Court of Appeal Appeals, s, 454 SCRA 249 , March 31, 25 Case !ature : PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
Dispositive "ortio#: "ortio#: WHEREORE! the "ecision of the Court of Appeals dated #une $%! $%%& is 'ET A'I"E and the case is ordered RE(AN"E" to the trial court for further proceedin)s! with costs a)ainst respondents. PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Court. Petition dated November 9, 99! "led b# the $etro $etro Iloilo %ater %ater &istrict &istrict assailin' the &ecision of the Court of Appeals dated (une 9, 99! which a)rmed the trial court*s Order+ dismissin' the petitions for inunction "led b# petitioner a'ainst private respondents. Petitioner is a water district. Its service areas encompass the entire territorial areas of Iloilo Cit# and the $unicipalities of $a-asin, Cabatuan, anta /arbara and Pavia. In April and $a# of 99+, petitioner "led nine 091 individual identical petitions for inunction with pra#er for preliminar# inunction a'ainst private respondents which read2 3.4That pursuant to the provisions of ection + 0a1 of P.&. P.&. 95, the petitioner as a %ater %ater &istrict was authori6ed author i6ed to adopt laws and re'ulations 'overnin' the drillin', maintenance and operation of wells within its boundaries for purposes other than sin'le famil# domestic use on overl#in' land, with then provision that an# well operated in violation of such re'ulations shall be deemed an interference with the waters of the district7 !.4That b# virtue of said authori6ation, the petitioner promul'ated its 8ules :overnin' :round %ater Pumpin' and prin' &evelopment %ithin the Territorial (urisdiction of the $etro $etro Iloilo %ater %ater &istrict,; ection ection + which read2 8:round %ater %ater Pumpin' and prin' &evelopment. E
.4That the respondent withdrawn 'round water within the urisdiction of the petitioner, without "rst securin' a %ater %ater Permit from the National %ater esources esources
Council nor had its well driller re'istered as such with said council, and sold said water to commercial and other consumers in Iloilo Cit#. ?.4That the unauthori6ed withdrawal of 'round water b# the respondent without permit is in violation of the rules and re'ulations prescribed. 5.4That the act of the respondent in continuin' to withdraw 'round water without Permit , is in violation of the %ater Code of the Philippines, and unless such act is restrained, will cause 'reat loss upon the petitioner. In their respective answers, private respondents uniforml# invo@ed the lac@ of urisdiction of the trial court, contendin' that the cases were within the ori'inal and e?, otherwise @nown as the %ater Code of the Philippines 0%ater Code1. In addition, private respondents denied the alle'ations The trial court dismissed the petitions in $arch ?, 993, rulin' that the controvers# was within the ori'inal urisdiction of the %ater Council, involvin', as it did, the appropriation, e? 'ivin' the N%C ori'inal urisdiction over the cases is applicable. Thus the petition for review. The sole issue in this petition, as presented b# petitioner, is2 &I& TBE E:IONA TIA CODT O IOIO BAFE (DI&ICTION OFE TBE D/(ECT $ATTE O TBE PETITIONGH? Petitioner states that as a water district, it has the ri'ht to prevent interference with the water of the district7 and to enforce such ri'ht, it is 'iven the remedies of
commencin', maintainin', or intervenin' in, defendin' or enterin' into appropriate actions or proceedin's. In assertin' the urisdiction of the re'ular courts over its petitions and the propriet# of its "lin' of the petitions before the trial court, petitioner invo@es the rulin' of the Court in Amistoso v. On',H5 as reiterated in antos v. Court of Appeals,H9 that where the issue involved is not the settlement of a water ri'hts dispute, but the eno#ment of a ri'ht to water use for which a permit was alread# 'ranted, the re'ular court has urisdiction and not the %ater Council. Petitioner insists that there is no occasion to invo@e the ori'inal urisdiction of the %ater Council in this case since there is no =uestion of appropriation, e
Petitioner had an approved %ater i'hts :rant from the &epartment of Public %or@s, Transportation and Communications. The trial court was not as@ed to 'rant petitioner the ri'ht to use but to compel private respondents to reco'ni6e that ri'ht. Thus, we declared that the trial court*s urisdiction must be upheld where the issue involved is not the settlement of a water ri'hts dispute, but the eno#ment of a ri'ht to water use for which a permit was alread# 'ranted.3 In li@e manner, the present petition calls for the issuance of an inunction order to prevent private respondents from e
