Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    Special Former Fifth (5) Division: Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Brian del Mundo
    The court denied MWCI's motion for reconsideration of the court's previous decision regarding a dispute between Prince Plaza II Condominium Corporation and MWCI over water rates. The court ruled that the precedent case cited by MWCI did not apply to this case, and that the case should not be remanded to the MWSS regulatory office, as that was not the original court of jurisdiction. The court's previous decision in favor of Prince Plaza II was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Special Former Fifth (5) Division: Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Brian del Mundo
    28 views4 pages
    The court denied MWCI's motion for reconsideration of the court's previous decision regarding a dispute between Prince Plaza II Condominium Corporation and MWCI over water rates. The court ruled that the precedent case cited by MWCI did not apply to this case, and that the case should not be remanded to the MWSS regulatory office, as that was not the original court of jurisdiction. The court's previous decision in favor of Prince Plaza II was affirmed.

    Original Title

    _UPLOADS_PDF_196_CV__107053_08272020

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court denied MWCI's motion for reconsideration of the court's previous decision regarding a dispute between Prince Plaza II Condominium Corporation and MWCI over water rates. The court ruled that the precedent case cited by MWCI did not apply to this case, and that the case should not be remanded to the MWSS regulatory office, as that was not the original court of jurisdiction. The court's previous decision in favor of Prince Plaza II was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    28 views4 pages

    Special Former Fifth (5) Division: Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Brian del Mundo
    The court denied MWCI's motion for reconsideration of the court's previous decision regarding a dispute between Prince Plaza II Condominium Corporation and MWCI over water rates. The court ruled that the precedent case cited by MWCI did not apply to this case, and that the case should not be remanded to the MWSS regulatory office, as that was not the original court of jurisdiction. The court's previous decision in favor of Prince Plaza II was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    Republic of the Philippines

    Court of Appeals
    Manila

    SPECIAL FORMER FIFTH (5th) DIVISION

    PRINCE PLAZA II CA-G.R. CV NO. 107053


    CONDOMINIUM
    CORPORATION, Members:
    Plaintiff-Appellee, *
    LAMPAS PERALTA, F.,
    Chairperson,
    -versus- LIBREA-LEAGOGO, C.C., &
    PEREZ, P.A., JJ.
    MANILA WATER
    Promulgated:
    COMPANY, INC.,
    Defendant-Appellant. AUGUST 27, 2020

    R E S O L U T I O N

    PEREZ, J.:

    For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration1 filed by


    defendant-appellant Manila Water Company, Inc. (MWCI) on
    February 26, 2019, which seeks reconsideration of Our Decision2
    dated January_22,_2019, the decretal portion of which reads:

    “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is


    DENIED. The Decision dated October 27, 2015 and Order dated
    February 23, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
    148, Makati City in Civil Case No. 13-1309 are AFFIRMED
    without prejudice to MWSS' determination of the appropriate
    rate classification of Prince Plaza II as a water consumer in an
    appropriate proceeding.

    SO ORDERED.”

    *
    New Member, vice J. Samuel H. Gaerlan, who was promoted to the Supreme Court; per Raffle dated
    January 21, 2020.
    1
    Rollo, pp. 273-294.
    2
    Ibid., pp. 244-264.
    CA-G.R. CV NO. 107053 Page 2 of 4
    RESOLUTION

    Plaintiff-Appellee Prince Plaza II Condominium Corporation


    (Prince Plaza) filed its Comment/Opposition3 on April 24, 2019,
    praying for the denial of MWCI's motion for utter lack of merit.

    On June 4, 2019, MWCI filed a Supplemental Motion for


    Reconsideration4 arguing that since this Court has ruled that
    Prince Plaza's reclassification as a water consumer is a factual
    issue which requires the expertise of the Manila Water and
    Sewerage System (MWSS), this Court should thus remand this
    case to the MWSS-Regulatory Office for the proper determination
    of Prince Plaza's classification.

    On September 16, 2019, MWCI filed a Manifestation5


    averring that the Supreme Court, in BSA Twin Towers
    Condominium Corporation vs. Manila Water Company, Inc.,
    G.R._No. 237430, April 3, 2019,6 ruled that BSA Twin Tower's
    complaint for sum of money against MWCI was filed prematurely
    as it failed to comply with the condition precedent of
    administrative resort to MWSS in accordance with MWSS RO-
    OPP-051-01. MWCI reiterates that this Court should remand the
    case to the MWSS-Regulatory Office for further proceedings.

    On October 10, 2019, Prince Plaza filed its Counter-


    Manifestation7 arguing, among others, that G.R._No. 237430 does
    not apply to this case since the former concerns a collection suit
    while the present action is one for injunction.

    The principle of stare decisis requires that once a case has


    been decided one way, the rule is settled that any other case
    involving exactly the same point at issue should be decided in the
    same manner.8 It simply means that for the sake of certainty, a
    conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that
    follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the
    parties may be different. It proceeds from the first principle of
    justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations,
    like cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the same
    3
    Rollo, pp. 299-314.
    4
    Ibid., pp. 320-332.
    5
    Ibid., 334-339.
    6
    Resolution.
    7
    Rollo, pp. 344-351.
    8
    Petron Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 180385, July 28, 2010.
    CA-G.R. CV NO. 107053 Page 3 of 4
    RESOLUTION

    questions relating to the same event have been put forward by the
    parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and
    decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to
    any attempt to relitigate the same issue.9

    Prince Plaza's action for injunction substantially varies from


    BSA Twin Tower's collection suit. The former is an injunction suit
    which is, as exhaustively discussed in Our January_22,_2019
    Decision, not within MWSS's jurisdiction, while the latter is a
    collection suit cognizable by the MWSS-Regulatory Office.
    Considering that G.R._No. 237430 is not on all fours with the
    present dispute, the application of the stare decisis rule is thus not
    warranted.

    This Court likewise denies MWCI's plea for the remand of


    this case to the MWSS-Regulatory Office since the latter is not
    the court of origin. Black's Law Dictionary defines the word
    “remand” as “to send back”, viz.:

    “REMAND. Sending the cause back to the same court out of


    which it came, for purpose of having some action on it there.” 10

    A remand of a case can be made only to the same court out of


    which it came, i.e., the court of origin. Here, the court of origin is
    not the MWSS-Regulatory Office but rather the the Regional Trial
    Court. Moreover, the fallo of this Court's January_22,_2019
    Decision is clear: “without prejudice to MWSS' determination of
    the appropriate rate classification of Prince Plaza II as a water
    consumer in an appropriate proceeding.” MWCI thus cannot
    seek to evade payment of fees on initiatory pleadings by beguiling
    this Court on remanding this case to the MWSS-Regulatory Office
    who is not the court of origin.

    Other than the two issues above, the arguments and issues
    raised by the movant in its motion for reconsideration are the
    same arguments and issues that have already been settled and
    resolved in the Decision dated January_22,_2019 being sought to
    be reconsidered.
    9
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. The Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd., G.R. No. 197192, June 4,
    2014.
    10
    Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition (1968).
    CA-G.R. CV NO. 107053 Page 4 of 4
    RESOLUTION

    The filing of a motion for reconsideration does not burden


    this Court with the obligation to discuss and rule again on the
    grounds relied upon by the movant which are merely a reiteration
    of the issues previously raised, and thoroughly determined and
    evaluated in the Decision being questioned.11

    Since no new matters had been raised by MWCI, We see no


    cogent reason to disturb Our January_22,_2019 Decision.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for


    reconsideration filed by defendant-appellant Manila Water Company,
    Inc. is DENIED. Our Decision dated January_22,_2019 STANDS.

    SO ORDERED.

    PABLITO A. PEREZ
    Associate Justice

    WE CONCUR:

    FERNANDA LAMPAS PERALTA


    Associate Justice

    CELIA C. LIBREA-LEAGOGO
    Associate Justice

    11
    Lumanog vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 182555, 185123, and 187745, February 8, 2011.

    You might also like