PUBLIC

WATERWORKS G.R. 78529 BF Homes, Incorporated and Philippine Water-Works and Construction, petitioner vs. National Water Resources Council and the Court of Appeals, respondent Petition for Mandamus DOCTRINE:
What the petitioner seeks, and this 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, []

FACTS: BF wants the National Water Resources Council to transfer the certificate to supply water to the Philippine Waterworks and Construction Corporation. However, the transfer has not been acted upon. BF filed a petition for mandamus with the C.A. It was not granted because:
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[.] -Mackenzie Pio vs. Hon. Pio R. Marcos, etc. et al

ISSUES: WoN the CA has erred in its decision HELD: YES. It is true that the petition cannot compel the court to specifically approve the pending applications.

 BUT this is not what petitioner, BF wanted to be done. It was only seeking for a writ that would compel respondent NWCR to consider the applications in accordance with the law, juris prudence, and best interests of the community involved. BF is entitled to such writ and it was GRANTED. G.R. No. 160732 Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, petitioner, vs. Hon. Reynaldo B. Daway, as presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 90 and Maynilad Water Services, Inc., respondents June 21, 2004 Petition for certiorari DOCTRINE:
[l]etters of credit were developed for the purpose of insuring to a seller payment of a definite amount upon the presentation of documents and is thus a commitment by the issuer that the party in whose favor it is issued and who can collect upon it will have his credit against the applicant of the letter, duly paid in the amount specified in the letter.

FACTS: The MWSS consigned Maynilad. To secure the concessionaires performance, MWSS required Maynilad to set up a security; which it arranged with Citicorp International Limited an Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit (IRSLC) in the amount of (US) $120,000,000.00. The peso rate went down sometime in September of 2000, causing Maynilads dollar account to become more expensive than expected; because of this, Maynilad filed a Force Majure. The two have reached a Concession Agreement, Amendment No. 1, after Maynilads second Force Majure filing. However, Maynilad now wanted out of the deal because, according to them, the MWSS did not comply with its obligations under the Agreement. When the case was eventually brought up to the Appeals Panel, they said that early termination was not allowed because such was not stipulated in the contract and allowed the MWSS to demand (US) $98,923,640.15 from Citicorp International Ltd. from the IRSLC.

 On November 17, 2003, the RTC granted Maynilad a stay order:

2. Staying enforcement of all claims, whether for money or otherwise and whether such enforcement is by court action or otherwise, against the petitioner, its guarantors and sureties not solidarily liable with the petitioner; [] 4. Prohibiting the petitioner from making any payment of its liabilities, outstanding as at the date of the filing of the petition; MWSS filed a petition for certiorari. They claimed that the lower court was out of jurisdiction when it issued the order. MWSS said that their claims are not part of Maynilads estate, and is not subject to jurisdiction of the court issued rehab.

ISSUES: WoN the court acted in excess of its authority or jurisdiction when it enjoined MWSS from seeking the payment of the concession fees from the banks that issued the Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit in its favor and for the account of respondent Maynilad? HELD: YES. The claim is not against a debtor but against an entity. Maynilad has procured to answer for non-performance in the Concession Agreement. Moreover,
[l]etters of credit were developed for the purpose of insuring to a seller payment of a definite amount upon the presentation of documents and is thus a commitment by the issuer that the party in whose favor it is issued and who can collect upon it will have his credit against the applicant of the letter, duly paid in the amount specified in the letter. They are in effect absolute undertakings to pay the money advanced []

G.R. No. 170446 March 23, 2011 Edgewater Realty Development, Inc., petitioner, vs. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System and Manila Water Company, Inc., respondents. DOCTRINE:

The obligation to remove the water connections fell upon the Marikina government, not upon respondent water utilities who were not parties to the earlier case. FACTS: Edgewater Realty Development, Inc. (ERDI), owned several parcels of land, one of which was occupied by informal settlers. The ERDI executed a MOA with the Municipality of Marikina, which called for the relocation of the settlers to another ERDI property, one that was to be allocated for such purpose. The property had all the primary facilities to satisfy the physiological needs of its inhabitants, provided that the settlers buy the land from the ERDI. However, due to the incapacity of the Municipality to control the influx of the settlers, the ERDI rescinded the contract. While waiting for the finalization of the informal settlers ejectment case, the ERDI realized that certain facilities, specifically the water system provided by the MWSS, were still being maintained without its consent. Thus the ERDI filed a case with the Quezon City RTC, which rendered the services of the MWSS and MWCI (Manila Water Company, Inc.), a company that managed and operated MWSS facilities in Marikina, as illegal. It also enjoined the companies from installing more water connections. However, the RTC did not order for the removal of the existing MWSS and MWCI services on ERDI property, nor did it prevent them from collecting for their services. The ERDI appealed to the CA, which merely reaffirmed the RTC decision; thus this petition for review. ISSUES: 1. WoN the CA erred in failing to compel the MWSS and MWCI to dismantle their existing water connections on ERDIs land that was occupied by informal settlers 2. WoN MWCI can collect payments of bills for water connections on that land HELD: 1. NO, the CA did not commit errors. The ERDI, invoked R.A. 8041 (regarding unauthorized illegal connections), but such cannot be used because of the principle of fair play. It rejects all maters not included in the complaint to be raised on appeal. It cannot also invoke the charter of MWSS as a source to remove the existing connections, as such are reserved for water facilities. The obligation to remove the water connections falls upon the Marikina govt., AND NOT upon the respondent water utilities, which were not parties in the earlier case. Thus, ERDIs remedy is to have the final judgment of the

Marikina MTC and the Quezon City RTC, for the eviction of settlers and removal of all structures, executed. 2. YES, because the courts have ruled that MWSS and MWCI put the water service in place when such was still permitted. And, because there is no valid reason for the services to be severed without the proper eviction of the informal settlers, it is only reasonable that compensation for such services may be collected.