LAW ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES 218 ‘The Board may deputize any official or agency of the govern- ment to perform any of its specific functions or activities.” a, Authority to enter upon private lands i i 2 the Cade ‘The Board and other agencios authorized to enforce t fred to enter upon private lands, with previous notice Tor the purpose of conducting surveys and hydrologic jons, and to perform such other acts as are necessary in ut their functions including the power to exercise the right of eminent domain.” are empowe! b, Jurisdiction of the Board over water disputes Pertinent provisions of PD No. 1067 (Water Code) provide: cab Tad iar ol ein cr, din tg Fe ee ee eens eo ea re oe ment ht ay uel oT ee coun Bd ye Dn re em tne ner te = ‘All disputes shail be decided within 60 days: the parties submit the same fr decision or resolution. Be natin to ree eo he als Article 88 speaks of the e the Board over all disputes relating to appropriation, exploitation, dev ization, control, conservation and protection of waters. Said jurisdiction does not extend to, much less cover, (CHAPTER X— WATER CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES 270 conflicting rights over real properties, jurisdiction over which is vested by law with the regular courts, In Tanjay Water District v. Gabaton,® the Court held that since Civil Case No, 8144 — an action for injunction with nary mandatory injunction and damages against respondent. Municipality of Pamplona and its officials to prevent them from interfering in the management of the Tanjay Waterworks System -— involves the appro>riation, utilization and control of water, the jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute pertains to the National Water Resources (Council) Board as provided in PD No. 1067 which 's the special law on the subject. c. Regular courts have jurisdiction where the issue involves the enjoyment of an existing right to use water Where the case does not involve tho settlement of a water rights dispute, but the enjoyment of a right to water use for which 2 permit was already granted, the regular court has jurisdiction over ‘he dispute, not the National Water Resources Board. Thus, twas held that where the main cause of action in the court a quo is id reversion to the government of a covering the Marungko Water Reservoir legally and erroneously titled in the name of Ives title to, and possession jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the regional trial court.*' Similarly, where the issue is whether or not the construction of the dike obstructed the natural water course or the free flow or water from petitioner's higher estate to intervenors’ lower estate, thereby causing injury to petitioner's rights and impairing the use and enjoyment fishpond, said issue necessitates resort to judicial intervention.” In Bulao v. Court of Appeals, the controversy is whether it is the municipal circuit trial court or the National Water Resources Board w'tich has jurisdiction over respondent's complaint for Gamages based upon a quasi-delict. Petitioner moved to dismiss the "GR No. 63742, April 17, 1988, 172 SCRA 258. §'Santosv. Cour of Appeals, GR No. 61218, Sept 2, 1992, 216 SCRA 162 “Atisv. Court of Appeels, GR No. 96401, April 6, 1992, 207 SCRA 742, ‘GR No, 101988, Fob 1 1998, 218 SCRA 331,80 LAW ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND RULE OF PROCEDURE FOkt ENVIRONMENTAL CASES complaint, aiguing that the case was cognizable by the Board, the sc brought case to the Supreme eid Court, insisting that the Board h citing the cases of Abe-abe v. Manta” and Tanjay Water District v. Gabaton.” The Court rejected petitioner's contention, explaining: “The petitioner invokes in this connection the cases of Abe-abe vs, Manta and Tanjay Water District vs. Gabaton. In the first ease, the petitioners sought a judicial confirmation of their prior vested right under Article 604 of the Civil Code to use the water of Anibungan Albay and ‘Tajong Crecks to irrigate their ricelands upstream. They also wanted to enjoin the private respondent from using the water of the creeks at night to irrigate his riceland Tocated downstream. Jn the second case, the court was asked to prevent ‘the Municipality of Pamplona from interfering with the management of the Tanjay Waterworks System. Tt was held in both cases that jurisdiction pertained to the National Water Resources (Coui isoues involved were the appropriatio control of water. controversy, It is clear from a reading of the private respondent's complaint in Civil Case 70 thai it is an action for damages predicated on a quasi-delict. A quasi-delict has the f& damage suffered by the plainti the defendant supposedly cor 7 and c) the causal connection between the act and the damage sustained by the plaintiff. All these elements are set out in the private res- pondeni’s complaint, specifically in paragraphs 5, 7, and GR Ne 1-4827, Mey 91, 1878, 90 SCRA 525, "Supra CHAPTER x— Waren cope oF THE PHILIPPINES (Presidential Deevee No. 1067) aa 8 thereof. The damage claimed to have been sustaii n n sustained ly private respondent consists of his lee of hase respondent's rice Plants, Tho Aaverments of the complaint plainly make out se of quasi-delict that may be the basis of an action for aeaso of tay be the basis of an action fo thereof, tocomply with any of their respect ss of their respective contractual ibligations during the pondency of the action for rescission of the lease contract.# 4. Rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies ‘The legal issue in Abe-Abe v, Ma Ma" is whett / 3. Manta ie whether the Cor First Instance of Camiguin has jurisdiction judicate wane with original ju to settle water rights disputes under the Water Code. concictrn with the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedice” ilo Water District v. Court of Appeals, it the petitions focus on the violations incurred Service area, vis-é-vis petitioner's vested rights as a water district, “Morville Park Homeowners Assocat NM yom, ae Pak Aswociation v. Velen, GR No, 82985, April 22, "Supra "GR No, 122865, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 249,{AW ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND RULES a OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES it is at once obvious that the petitions raise a judiciai question, hence, the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies does not ially it may appear that there is a dimension to the pertains to the sphere of the Water Council, i.e., ‘ion of water which the Water Code defines as “the ition of rights over the use of waters or the taking or diverting of waters from a natural source in the manner and for any purpose allowed by law,” in reality the matter is at most merely collateral to the main thrust of the petitions. €. Decisions of the Board should be taken to the Court of Appeals Article 89 of PD No. 1067 (Water Code of the which states that “decisions of the Council (Board) on controversies may be province where the subject matter of the controversy had long been rendered inoperative by the passage of BP Blg. 129. Since the Court of Appeals has exclusive appellate juristiction over judicial agencies under Rule 48 of the Rules of Court, petitions of certiorari, prot lamus against the acts like the National Water G. Penalties and Repealed Lews 18. Penalties. Articles 90 and 91 of the Water Code enumerate ‘ie acts that may be penalized under the Code. The criminal action shall be brought before the proper court." 49. Repealed taws. ‘The following laws, parts and/or provisions of laws have been repealed by the Water Code: ‘The provisions of the Spanish Law on Waters 3, 1866, the Civil Code of Spain of 1889 and the ‘ode of the Philippines (RA No. 886) on ownership of “National Water Resources Boars, As Ang Network, Ine, GX No, 186460, ‘pil 8, 2010. "Art 92, PD No, 1087 (CHAPTER X.— WATER CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES 388 (@resdential Deore No, 1067) waters, easements relating to waters, use of public waters and acquisitive prescription on the use of waters, which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Code; b. The provisions of RA No. 6395, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of National Power Corporation, particularly Section 3, paragraph (f), and Section 12, insofar as :hey relate to the appropriation of waters and the grant sions of Act No. 2152, as amended, other- known as the Irrigation Act, Section 3, paragraphs (k) and f PD No. 813, RA No. 2056; Section 90, CA No. 187; and d. All laws, decrees, executive orders, administrative regulations and rules of court which are ‘contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of the Code." HH. Water Districts 20. Creation of water districts. PD No, 198, otherwise known as the ‘Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973” (effective May 25, 1973) as rmended by PD No. 768 and PD No. 1479 (effective June 11, 1978), authorizes the formation, lays down the powers and functions, and governs the operation of water districts throughout the country; it is “the source of authorization, and power to form and maintain a (water) district.” Once formed, a istrict is susject to its provisions and is not under the jurisdiction of any political subdivision. 8. Functions Under PD No. 198, water districts may be created by the different local legislative bodies by the passage of a resolution to “his effect, subject to the terms of the Decree. The primary function of these water districts is to sell water to residents within their territory, under such schedules of rates and charges as may be determined by their boards. They shall manage, administer, and maintain all watersheds within their territorial ies, safeguard and protect the use of the waters therein, "Ast. 100, Ibid, Seo lao Abe-Abe v. Manta, GR No, L-4821, May 81, 1979, 00 SORA 525 "Sec. 38, PD No, 1 8 amended by PD No, 768,