NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MINERVA I. PIGUING, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA, THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN FERNANDO, THE CITY…

Original petition for certiorari
with preliminary injunction to annul two (2) orders of Honorable Minerva I. Piguing, as Judge of First Instance of Pampanga,
one dated December 29, 1965, and another January 14, 1966, and to restrain,
meanwhile, the enforcement of said orders.

Petitioner herein is the National Waterworks and Sewerage
Authority, hereinafter referred to as NAWASA. 
The respondents are said Judge Piguing, and
the Municipalities of San Fernando, Guagua and Macabebe, as well as the City of Angeles,
hereinafter referred to collectively as the municipal corporations.  It appears that, purporting to act in
pursuance of Republic Act No. 1383, during the year 1958, NAWASA took over the
possession, operation and control of the waterworks systems of said municipal
corporations, without paying any compensation therefor.  Hence, on September 30, 1961, said municipal corporations commenced
civil case No. 2026 of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga,
against NAWASA to recover their respective waterworks systems, as well as
damages.  In their complaint, the
municipal corporations prayed, also, for a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction, to restrain NAWASA from enforcing said Republic Act No. 1383, during
the pendency of the case.

After the filing of NAWASA’s answer –
admitting some alle­gations of the complaint, denying other allegations thereof
and setting up special defenses and a counterclaim – and the submission of the
reply thereto of the municipal corporations, said Court, – then presided over
by Hon. Ladislao Pasicolan,
Judge – held on March 16, 1963, a pre-trial, at which it was agreed between the
parties:  (1) that the only issue for
determination in the case was the fair and reasonable value of the properties
involved; (2) that the parties would submit a complete inventory thereof; (3)
that the same would be set for hearing, to determine the correctness thereof;
(4) that, after the approval of said inventory, the Court would appoint a
committee of appraisal; and (5) that, after the value of the aforementioned
properties had been settled, such other issues as the parties may raise shall
be heard.

Accordingly, inventories were filed and an appraisal com­mittee
was organized, which, subsequently, submitted its report.  On December
11, 1965, the prayer of the municipal corporations for a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction was heard. 
Later, or on December 29, 1965,
said Court – then presided over by Judge Piguing –
issued one of the orders complained of. 
Premised upon the finding that “the continuous exercise” by
NAWASA “of its jurisdiction, supervision and control over the waterwork systems without paying just compensation to the x
x x municipal corporations,
would be detrimental to their rights of dominion over their respective
waterworks system x x x
“, and that the Supreme Court had, in several cases,^[1]
declared Republic Act 1383 “unconstitutional, as it carries out a transfer
of dominion” which is “in the nature of expropriation of private
property,” said order of December 29, 1965 concluded as follows:

“IN VIEW THEREOF, this Court finds the petition for a mandatory
preliminary injunction meritorious pending the final determination of this
complaint.  Wherefore, let a writ of
mandatory preliminary injunction be issued, enjoining and restraining the defendant
NAWASA from its administration, supervision, operation and control of the
waterworks system of the municipalities of San Fernando,
Guagua, Macabebe, Angeles
(now City of Angeles) until further
order of this Court.”

On January 7, 1966,
NAWASA filed a motion for reconsideration, which was resolved by an order dated
January 14, 1966.  This order states that, “taking into
consideration” the assurance given by counsel for the NAWASA to the effect
that, “given seventy-two (72) hours or three (3) days,” the NAWASA
would be “able to x x x
deposit x x x the amount
corresponding to the net book value of the waterworks systems” in
question, to wit:

as “agreed upon by the parties
x x x during the pre-trial
x x x before x x x Judge x x
x Pasicolan” and as
recommended by the appraisal committee, the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction issued on December 29, 1965, was suspended for seventy-two (72)
hours, beginning from January 14, 1966, “to give a chance to the x x x NAWASA to make the
corresponding deposit” of said amounts, with the understanding that
otherwise, said writ “shall stand and be duly implemented,” as well
as reiterated.

Thereupon, or on January 26, 1966, NAWASA commenced the present
action for certiorari with
preliminary injunction, alleging that respondent Judge had acted “with
grave abuse of discretion or without or in excess of jurisdiction” in
issuing said orders of December 29, 1965 and January 14, 1966, because NAWASA
had always been agreeable to pay the amounts claimed by the municipal
corporations in their original complaint and inventories; because, instead of
maintaining the status quo, the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
issued by respondent Judge had changed or upset conditions that had been in
existence for over four (4) years; because, being a possessor in good faith,
NAWASA could not be deprived of its possession without payment of the improve­ments
it had introduced in the waterworks systems aforementioned; and because the
imposition upon NAWASA of the obligation to de­posit the sums set forth in the
order of January 14, 1966, was unreasonable. 
Upon the posting and approval of a bond in the sum of P50, 000, we
issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by NAWASA.

The petition herein is manifestly devoid of merit for:  (1) the proprietary rights of the municipal
corporations to the waterworks systems in question are admitted; (2) so is
their right to compensation therefor and petitioner’s
obligation to pay said compensation; (3) it is not disputed that petitioner had
taken said properties without making the requisite payment; (4) as early as
August 31, 1959, we had declared^[2]
that Republic Act No. 1383 – on which petitioner relies – is unconstitutional,
a insofar as it authorizes the taking of local waterworks systems without
providing for an effective payment of just compensation^[3]
so that petitioner must have been aware of this fact over two (2) years before
the institution of the main case in the lower court; (5) the amounts set forth
in the order of January 14, 1966, are admittedly the book value of the properties
in question; and (6) petitioner’s counsel had expressed its readiness and
willingness to make the deposit complained of, within the period specified in
said order.^[4]

In short, we find
that respondent Judge had neither com­mitted a grave abuse of discretion nor
exceeded her jurisdiction in issuing the orders complained of, for which
reason, this case is hereby dismissed, and the writ of preliminary injunction
issued by this Court dissolved, with costs against the petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., did not take part.

^[1] Mun. of La Carlota v. NAWASA, G.R. No. L-20232, Sept. 30, 1964; Mun.
of Naguilian v. NAWASA, L-18540, Nov. 29,
1963; City of Cebu v. NAWASA, L-12892, April
30, 1960; City of Baguio v. NAWASA, L-12032,
August 31, 1959.

^[2] City
of Baguio
v. NAWASA, 106 Phil. 144, 155-156.

^[3] Municipality
of San Juan v. NAWASA, L-22047,
August 31, 1967; NAWASA v. Hon. Catolico, etc., et al., L-21705, April 27, 1967; The
Province of Misamis Occidental v. NAWASA, L-24327, April 27, 1967; Municipality of Compostela v.
NAWASA, L-21763, December 17, 1966; Municipality of La Carlota v. NAWASA, L-20232, September 30, 1964; Naguilian v.
NAWASA, L-18540, November 29, 1963; Cebu v. NAWASA, L-12892, April 30, 1960.

^[4] Section
1, Rule 58, Rules of Court; Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co. v. Del Rosario, 22 Phil. 433, 437; Calo v. Roldan, 76 Phil. 445.