BF HOMES, INCORPORATED AND PHILIPPINE WATERWORKS AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner BF Homes,
Inc., is a residential subdivision owner-operator and as such, constructed
water distribution systems at its several subdivisions so that residents would
have an adequate supply of potable water. 
Petitioner applied for and was granted a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity in respect of its water distribution system at its
Las Piñas subdivision.  Petitioner sought authority from the
respondent National Water Resources Council on 12 March 1982 to
transfer the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to its
co-petitioner, the Philippine Waterworks and Construction Corporation
(PWCC).  To date, the application for
transfer has yet to be acted upon by the respondent Council.

Petitioner also has a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity to operate its water distribution system at B.F. Homes Parañaque.  On 25
June 1985, petitioner sought authority from respondent Council to increase
the water rates at B.F. Homes Parañaque.  Petitioner alleges that the increase in rates
was not opposed by the residents of that subdivision who, as a matter of fact, sought immediate
approval so that the increased rates would enable petitioner to meet the power
bills from the Manila Electric Company, power being essential for operation of the
water distribution system.  Respondent
Council similarly failed to date to act upon this application to increase
rates.

Petitioner filed a petition
for mandamus with the respondent appellate court to compel respondent
Council to act on the application for transfer of the franchise at Las Piñas to PWCC and also to act upon the application for
authority to increase water rates. 
Respondent appellate court, in two Resolutions dated respectively 16
February 1987 and 28 May 1987 in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 09135, dismissed the petition
for mandamus upon the ground that mandamus will not issue to compel the respondent Council
to act on the matters pending before it, since such acts are not ministerial in
nature.

The respondent appellate court fell into reversible error
here.  It is established doctrine that mandamus
will not issue to control the
performance of discretionary, non-ministerial,
duties, that is, to compel a body discharging duties involving the exercise of
discretion to act in a particular way or to approve or disapprove a specific
application.  In Mackenzie Pio vs. Hon. Pio R. Marcos, etc.,
et al.,^[1] this Court, through then Mr. Justice Teehankee, said:

“The petition must fail because under the circumstances of
record, the issuance of the injunction sought is manifestly not a
ministerial duty, viz a duty which is so clear
and specific as to leave no room for the exercise of discretion in its
performance and its discharge requires neither the exercise of official
discretion nor judgment.  The issuance of
a writ
of discretion and mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of
such discretionary function.  It is an
established principle that the writ of mandamus may not be issued to
control the discretion of a judge or to compel him to decide a case or a
motion pending before him in a particular way – the writ being available only to compel him to exercise his discretion
or his jurisdiction.”^[2]
(Underscoring supplied)

Again,
in Philippine Airlines Employees Associations vs. Philippine
Airlines, Inc.,^[3] Mme. Justice Melencio-Herrera
wrote:

“x x
x But while Certiorari is a proper
procedural remedy, this Court cannot compel respondent Court to lift its Order
of December 6, 1969 or to
reconsider the same, for this involves the exercise of judgment and discretion.  It can only compel respondent Court to act
on the pending Motions one way or the other.  It is an established principle that the
Writ of Mandamus may not
be issued to control the discretion of a Judge or to compel him to decide a
case or motion in a particular way – the Writ being available only to compel him to exercise his discretion
or jurisdiction.  The
law concedes to Judges and Courts the right to decide questions according to
their own judgment and understanding of the law.”^[4] (Underscoring supplied)

Petitioner, however, does
not here seek to compel respondent Council specifically to approve petitioner’s
applications pending before it.  What
petitioner seeks, and this it is entitled to, is a writ that would require respondent Council to consider and deliberate
upon the applications before it, examining in that process whatever evidence
lies before it and to act accordingly, either approving or disapproving the
applications before it, in accordance with applicable law and jurisprudence and
in the best interest of the community involved. 
Per the records of this case, respondent Council has failed, for
unexplained reasons, to exercise its discretion and to act, one way or the
other, on the applications of petitioners for a prolonged period of time imposing
in the process substantial prejudice or inconvenience upon the many hundreds of
families living in the two subdivisions involved.  It appears, further, that respondent Council
failed to inform petitioner of a supposed need for additional data concerning
petitioner PWCC.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is GRANTED due
course and the Resolutions dated 16 February 1987 and 28 May 1987 of the respondent appellate court are hereby
set aside.  Considering the need for
prompt action, the Court resolved itself to issue directly a Writ of Mandamus
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).  No pronouncement as to
costs.  This Resolution is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, and Cortes,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
56 SCRA 726 (1974).

^[2]
56 SCRA at 746.

^[3]
111 SCRA 215 (1982).

^[4]
111 SCRA at 219-220.