SC asked to reconsider rule favoring Manila Water, Maynilad
01/28/2008 | 06:38 PM
At least three non-government organizations on Monday asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling exempting the Manila Water Company, Inc. and Maynilad Water Services Inc. from the 12-percent profit limit under the Charter of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS).
In a five-page motion for reconsideration, the Freedom from Debt Coalition, Akbayan Citizen’s Action’s Party, and the Alliance of Progressive Labor claimed that the high court’s ruling would burden consumers, because Manila Water and Maynilad’s corporate taxes would be indirectly shouldered by end users.
Earlier, the MWSS issued two resolutions stating that its two concessionaires — Manila Water and Maynilad — were not public utilities, and thus exempted from the 12 percent profit limit. The resolutions were upheld by the Supreme Court.
The petitioners said the same resolutions — MWSS Board Resolution No. 2004-2001 and MWSS-Regional Office (RO) Resolution No.04-006-CA — gave the concessionaires the right to deny their services to anyone within their jurisdiction.
In its December 10 decision, the SC en banc junked the groups’ petition saying that they failed to avail of the appropriate remedy by first appealing the resolution with the National Water Resources Board (NWRB), and to include as indispensable parties the two concessionaires.
The high court also pointed out that petitioners failed to follow the hierarchy of courts when it directly filed the petition before the Supreme Court, instead of seeking relief from the lower court.
The Supreme Court also said the issue on whether the Maynilad and Manila Water were public utilities were factual matters would have to be resolved by examining the intention of MWSS and the concessionaires at the time of the bidding process, negotiation, and execution of the concession agreements.
It further branded as "purely speculative" the claim of the petitioners that the MWSS resolutions could allow the increase of water rates beyond the 12 percent rate of return limit.
But the groups said their petition was not contesting the rates or fees of water or sewerage services. Thus, it did not fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the NWRB.
"Petitioners respectfully submit that this premise is inaccurate. Petitioners are not contesting the rates granted by respondents to the concessionaires but the legal validity of their declaration that concessionaires are not public utilities," they said.
They insisted that Manila Water and Maynilad were not indispensable parties to the case because the principal relief prayed for in the petition was a declaration of nullity of the two resolutions issued by MWSS.
"Any determination as regards the validity of the actions undertaken by government agencies will obviously have some impact on private interests, but this does not require that all such private parties be impleaded in an action contesting the same to enable final determination of the issues involved," the groups said. - GMANews.TV
In a five-page motion for reconsideration, the Freedom from Debt Coalition, Akbayan Citizen’s Action’s Party, and the Alliance of Progressive Labor claimed that the high court’s ruling would burden consumers, because Manila Water and Maynilad’s corporate taxes would be indirectly shouldered by end users.
Earlier, the MWSS issued two resolutions stating that its two concessionaires — Manila Water and Maynilad — were not public utilities, and thus exempted from the 12 percent profit limit. The resolutions were upheld by the Supreme Court.
The petitioners said the same resolutions — MWSS Board Resolution No. 2004-2001 and MWSS-Regional Office (RO) Resolution No.04-006-CA — gave the concessionaires the right to deny their services to anyone within their jurisdiction.
In its December 10 decision, the SC en banc junked the groups’ petition saying that they failed to avail of the appropriate remedy by first appealing the resolution with the National Water Resources Board (NWRB), and to include as indispensable parties the two concessionaires.
The high court also pointed out that petitioners failed to follow the hierarchy of courts when it directly filed the petition before the Supreme Court, instead of seeking relief from the lower court.
The Supreme Court also said the issue on whether the Maynilad and Manila Water were public utilities were factual matters would have to be resolved by examining the intention of MWSS and the concessionaires at the time of the bidding process, negotiation, and execution of the concession agreements.
It further branded as "purely speculative" the claim of the petitioners that the MWSS resolutions could allow the increase of water rates beyond the 12 percent rate of return limit.
But the groups said their petition was not contesting the rates or fees of water or sewerage services. Thus, it did not fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the NWRB.
"Petitioners respectfully submit that this premise is inaccurate. Petitioners are not contesting the rates granted by respondents to the concessionaires but the legal validity of their declaration that concessionaires are not public utilities," they said.
They insisted that Manila Water and Maynilad were not indispensable parties to the case because the principal relief prayed for in the petition was a declaration of nullity of the two resolutions issued by MWSS.
"Any determination as regards the validity of the actions undertaken by government agencies will obviously have some impact on private interests, but this does not require that all such private parties be impleaded in an action contesting the same to enable final determination of the issues involved," the groups said. - GMANews.TV
