SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237430. April 3, 2019.]
BSA TWIN TOWERS CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.MANILA WATER COMPANY, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237430 — BSA Twin Towers Condominium Corporation versus Manila Water Company, Inc.
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated September 15, 2017 and Resolution 2 dated January 30, 2018 in CA-G.R. CV No. 108036, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition and AFFIRM the Decision and Resolution of the CA since the petitioner failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The CA affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) Dismissal 3 of the petitioner's complaint for sum of money on the ground that it was filed prematurely since it did not comply with the condition precedent of resort to Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) in administrative proceedings in accordance with MWSS RO-OPP-051-01. Citing FreedomfromDebt Coalition v. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, 4 the CA noted that since the respondent is only a concessionaire and an agent of the MWSS, the former can only implement the rules and regulations set by the latter with regard to the rates imposed on consumers. Thus, the petitioner should have elevated its concern to the MWSS before seeking redress from the court if it was dissatisfied with the interpretation by the respondent of the rules on the applicable water rates. Without the participation of the MWSS, and a finding that the petitioner was indeed overcharged, the petitioner has no cause of action to collect the sum of P1,150,000.00 from the respondent. The Court, in a long line of cases, has consistently held that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court's judicial power can be sought. 5
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 43-48. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, with Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Pablito A. Perez concurring.
2.Id. at 50.
3. See Order dated July 11, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 264 penned by Acting Presiding Judge Genie G. Gapas-Agbada; id. at 52-54.
4. 564 Phil. 566 (2007).
5.Rollo, p. 46. Citations omitted.