National Water Resources Board (NWRB) vs. A. L. Ang Network, Inc.

Certiorari and appellate jurisdiction over adjudications of the National Water Resources Board belongs to the Court of Appeals, not the Regional Trial Courts, because Article 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1067 was rendered inoperative by Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 and the Rules of Court, and the list of quasi-judicial agencies in Rule 43 is not exclusive.

The National Water Resources Board is a quasi-judicial agency whose decisions on water rights controversies were, under Article 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1067, otherwise known as the Water Code of the Philippines, appealable to the Regional Trial Court. A.L. Ang Network, Inc. was an applicant before the NWRB, while the Bacolod City Water District was an oppositor in the administrative proceedings. Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 reorganized the judiciary and vested the Court of Appeals with appellate jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies, while Rule 43 and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court govern appeals and petitions for certiorari against such agencies. The dispute concerns the proper forum for challenging NWRB adjudications.

On January 23, 2003, A.L. Ang Network filed with the National Water Resources Board an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience to operate and maintain a water service system in Alijis, Bacolod City. The Bacolod City Water District opposed the application on the ground that it was the only government agency authorized to operate a water service system within the city.

By Decision of August 20, 2003, the NWRB granted A.L. Ang Network's CPC application. BACIWA moved for reconsideration, contending that its right to due process was violated when it was not allowed to present evidence in support of its opposition. The NWRB reconsidered its Decision and allowed BACIWA to present evidence.

A.L. Ang Network then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City against the NWRB and BACIWA. The NWRB moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the proper recourse of A.L. Ang Network was to the Court of Appeals, citing Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. A.L. Ang Network's motion for reconsideration was denied, and it filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the Regional Trial Court's April 15, 2005 Order, holding that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over appeals from NWRB decisions. The NWRB's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the present petition for review.

• Repeal of Article 89, PD 1067: Petitioner contended that the Regional Trial Court has no certiorari jurisdiction over the NWRB because Section 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1067, regarding appeals, has been superseded and repealed by Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 and the Rules of Court.
• No Law or Rule Vesting RTC with Certiorari Jurisdiction: Petitioner maintained that the Regional Trial Court does not have jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul or modify its acts or omissions as a quasi-judicial agency; citing Section 4 of Rule 65, it argued that no law or rule requires the filing of a petition for certiorari over its acts or omissions in any court or tribunal other than the Court of Appeals.
• Error in the CA's Repeal Analysis: Petitioner faulted the Court of Appeals for holding that Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 did not expressly repeal Article 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1067.

• Correctness of the CA Decision: Respondent maintained the correctness of the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals.

• Jurisdiction over NWRB Adjudications: Whether the Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction over appeals from, or petitions for certiorari against, decisions, resolutions, or orders of the National Water Resources Board.
• Repeal of Article 89, PD 1067: Whether Article 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1067, which allowed appeals from NWRB decisions to the Regional Trial Court, was repealed or rendered inoperative by Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 and the Rules of Court.
• Exception under Rule 65, Section 4: Whether Article 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1067 is an "otherwise provided by law" exception to the rule that petitions for certiorari against quasi-judicial agencies shall be filed with the Court of Appeals.
• Coverage under Rule 43: Whether the National Water Resources Board is covered by Rule 43 of the Rules of Court despite not being listed among the quasi-judicial agencies therein.

• Jurisdiction over NWRB Adjudications: No. Certiorari and appellate jurisdiction over adjudications of the National Water Resources Board properly belongs to the Court of Appeals; the Regional Trial Court's April 15, 2005 Order dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction was upheld.
• Repeal of Article 89, PD 1067: Yes. Article 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1067 had long been rendered inoperative by the passage of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, whose Section 47 repealed or modified inconsistent prior statutes.
• Exception under Rule 65, Section 4: No. Article 89 is not an exception; it conferred appellate review to the Regional Trial Court, not certiorari jurisdiction, and was repealed. Rule 65, Section 4 directs petitions against quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules.
• Coverage under Rule 43: Yes. The list of quasi-judicial agencies in Rule 43 is not exclusive; the word "among" indicates that other quasi-judicial agencies, including the National Water Resources Board, may be covered.

• Jurisdiction over NWRB Adjudications: Section 9(1) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 granted the Court of Appeals original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Since the Court of Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies under Rule 43, petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus against the acts and omissions of quasi-judicial agencies like the National Water Resources Board should be filed with it. Rule 65 imposes this for procedural uniformity, and the only exception is when the law or the Rules itself directs otherwise under Section 4, Rule 65. The Court of Appeals' construction that Article 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1067 is such an exception is erroneous.
• Repeal of Article 89, PD 1067: Article 89 allowed decisions of the National Water Resources Board on water rights controversies to be appealed to the Regional Trial Court within 15 days on grave abuse of discretion, question of law, and questions of fact and law. Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, aside from delineating the jurisdictions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts, provided in Section 47 a general repealing clause covering all other statutes, letters of instructions, and general orders or parts thereof inconsistent with Batas Pambansa Bilang 129. The general repealing clause predicates intended repeal on a substantial conflict between existing and prior acts. In enacting Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, the Batasang Pambansa was presumed to have knowledge of Article 89 and to have intended to change it. The legislative intent to repeal Article 89 is clear and manifest given the scope and purpose of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, one of which is to provide a homogeneous procedure for the review of adjudications of quasi-judicial entities to the Court of Appeals. Article 89 conferred to the Regional Trial Court the power of review on appeal, not certiorari jurisdiction; it merely made grave abuse of discretion another ground to invoke in an ordinary appeal to the Regional Trial Court. The issuance of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 and the subsequent formulation of the Rules clarified and delineated the appellate and certiorari jurisdictions of the Court of Appeals over adjudications of quasi-judicial bodies. Grave abuse of discretion may be invoked before the appellate court as a ground for an error of jurisdiction. In this case, respondent assailed the NWRB's order via certiorari before the Regional Trial Court, invoking grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not an error of judgment.
• Exception under Rule 65, Section 4: Section 4, Rule 65 states that if a petition involves the acts of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. The phrase "unless otherwise provided by law or these rules" admits exceptions, but Article 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1067 is not one because it was rendered inoperative by Batas Pambansa Bilang 129. Thus, the Regional Trial Court had no certiorari jurisdiction over the NWRB's acts or omissions.
• Coverage under Rule 43: While Section 9(3) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 and Section 1 of Rule 43 do not list the National Water Resources Board among the quasi-judicial agencies whose final judgments, orders, resolutions, or awards are appealable to the appellate court, it is a non sequitur to hold that the Court of Appeals has no appellate jurisdiction over the NWRB's judgments, orders, resolutions, or awards. The list of quasi-judicial agencies specifically mentioned in Rule 43 is not meant to be exclusive; the employment of the word "among" clearly instructs so. BF Northwest Homeowners Association vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, a 1987 case cited by the appellate court to support Regional Trial Court jurisdiction, is no longer controlling in light of the definitive instruction of Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court. Tanjay Water District vs. Gabaton is not in point because the issue therein was which between the Regional Trial Court and the then National Water Resources Council had jurisdiction over disputes in the appropriation, utilization, and control of water. In fine, certiorari and appellate jurisdiction over adjudications of the National Water Resources Board properly belongs to the Court of Appeals.

• Repeal by implication through a general repealing clause — A later statute's general repealing clause repeals prior inconsistent statutes when a substantial conflict exists between them. In this case, Section 47 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 repealed or modified inconsistent provisions of prior statutes, including Article 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1067, because Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 intended to provide a homogeneous procedure for review of quasi-judicial adjudications to the Court of Appeals.
• Jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies — Under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 and Rule 43, the Court of Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, or awards of quasi-judicial agencies, except those within the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. Under Section 4, Rule 65, petitions for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus against acts or omissions of quasi-judicial agencies are filed with and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules. The National Water Resources Board is such an agency, and Article 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1067 is not an exception.
• Non-exclusivity of the Rule 43 list — The enumeration of quasi-judicial agencies in Rule 43 is not exclusive; the word "among" shows that other quasi-judicial agencies not listed may still fall within the Court of Appeals' appellate jurisdiction. Thus, the National Water Resources Board's adjudications are reviewable by the Court of Appeals even though it is not named in the list.
• Grave abuse of discretion as ground in ordinary appeal — Article 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1067 made grave abuse of discretion a ground in an ordinary appeal to the Regional Trial Court, not a basis for certiorari jurisdiction. Under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 and the Rules, grave abuse of discretion may be invoked before the Court of Appeals as a ground for an error of jurisdiction.

• "In fine, certiorari and appellate jurisdiction over adjudications of petitioner properly belongs to the Court of Appeals." — This is the Court's concluding ratio, resolving the jurisdictional question in favor of the Court of Appeals.
• "Article 89 of PD 1067 had long been rendered inoperative by the passage of BP 129." — This states the core basis for rejecting the Regional Trial Court's appellate jurisdiction over NWRB decisions.
• "It is settled that the list of quasi-judicial agencies specifically mentioned in Rule 43 is not meant to be exclusive." — This defines the non-exclusivity of Rule 43's enumeration, allowing NWRB adjudications to fall within the Court of Appeals' appellate jurisdiction.

• BF Northwest Homeowners Association vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72370, 234 Phil. 537 (1987) — Cited by the Court of Appeals to support Regional Trial Court jurisdiction over NWRB decisions; the Supreme Court declared it no longer controlling in light of Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court.
• Tanjay Water District vs. Gabaton, G.R. No. 63742, 254 Phil. 253 (1989) — Cited by the Court of Appeals; held not in point because the issue there was which between the Regional Trial Court and the then National Water Resources Council had jurisdiction over disputes in the appropriation, utilization, and control of water.
• Mecano vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 103982, 216 SCRA 500, 505 (1992) — Cited for the rule that a general repealing clause predicates intended repeal on the existence of a substantial conflict between existing and prior acts.
• Magno vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 147904, 390 SCRA 495, 500 (2002) — Cited for the presumption that the legislature had knowledge of prior law and intended to change it.
• United Coconut Planters Bank vs. E. Ganzon, Inc., G.R. Nos. 168859 and 168897, June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 321, 337 — Cited, along with Land Bank of the Philippines vs. De Leon, Sy vs. COSLAP, and Metro Construction, Inc. vs. Chatham Properties, Inc., for the rule that the list of quasi-judicial agencies in Rule 43 is not exclusive.

• Article 89, Presidential Decree No. 1067 (Water Code of the Philippines) — Provided that decisions of the National Water Resources Board on water rights controversies may be appealed to the Regional Trial Court within 15 days on grounds of grave abuse of discretion, question of law, and questions of fact and law. The Court held it had been rendered inoperative by Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 and was not an exception to Rule 65, Section 4.
• Section 9, Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 — Vested the Court of Appeals with original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and with exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, or awards of quasi-judicial agencies, except those within the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. Applied to hold that National Water Resources Board adjudications are reviewable by the Court of Appeals.
• Section 47, Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 — General repealing clause that repealed or modified inconsistent provisions of prior statutes, including Article 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1067.
• Section 4, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Provides that if a petition involves the acts of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules, it shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. Applied to reject Regional Trial Court certiorari jurisdiction over the National Water Resources Board.
• Section 1, Rule 43, Rules of Court — Governs appeals from judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies and lists agencies "among" which are certain bodies. The Court held the list is not exclusive, so the National Water Resources Board is covered.

Reynato S. Puno (Chief Justice, Chairperson), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Martin S. Villarama, Jr.