11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 154

88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

BF Homes, Incorporated vs. National Water Resources
Council

*
No. L-78529. September 17,1987.

BF HOMES, INCORPORATED and PHILIPPINE

WATERWORKS AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,
petitioners, vs. NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES
COUNCIL and THE COURT OF APPE ALS, respondents.

Mandamus; Petition for Mandamus will not lie to control the

per-formance of discretionary, non-ministerial duties.—Petitioner
filed a petition for mandamus with the respondent appellate court
to compel respondent Council to act on the application for transfer
of the franchise at Las Piñas to PWCC and also to act upon the
application for authority to increase water rates. Respondent
appellate court, in two Resolutions dated respectively 16 February
1987 and 28 May 1987 in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 09135, dismissed the
petition for mandamus upon the ground that mandamus will not
issue to compel the respondent Council to act on the matters
pending before it, since such acts are not ministerial in nature.
The respondent appellate court fell into reversible error here. It is
established doctrine that mandamus will not issue to control the
performance of discretionary, nonministerial, duties, that is, to
compel a body of discharging duties involving the exercise of
discretion to act in a particular way or to approve or disapprove a
specific application.
Same; Writ available only to compel the exercise of discretion
or jurisdiction.—In Mackenzie Pio vs. Hon. Pio R. Marcos, etc., et
al., this Court, through then Mr. Justice Teehankee, said: "The
petition must fail because under the circumstances of record. the
issuance of

________________

* THIRD DIVISION.

89

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175c9bec908076fa85f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/6
11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 154

VOL. 154, SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 89

BF Homes, Incorporated vs. National Water Resources Council

the injunction sought is manifestly not a ministerial duty, viz a

duty which is so clear and specific as to leave no room for the
exercise of discretion in its performance and its discharge requires
neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment. The
issuance of a writ of dicretion and mandamus will not lie to
compel the performance of such discretionary function. It is an
established principle that the writ of mandamus may not be issued
to control the discretion of a judge or to compel him to decide a
case or a motion pending before him in a particular way—the writ
being available only to compel him to exercise his discretion or his
jurisdiction."
Same; Respondent Council may be compelled to act on the
pending motions; Case at bar.—Petitioner, however, does not here
seek to compel respondent Council specifically to approve
petitioner's applications pending before it. What petitioner seeks,
and this it 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, either approving or disapproving the application
before it, in accordance with applicable law and jurisprudence and
in the best interest of the community involved. Per the records of
this case, respondent Council has failed, for unexplained reasons,
to exercise its discretion and to act, one way or the other, on the
applications of petitioners for a prolonged period of time imposing
in the process substantial prejudice or inconvenience upon the
many hundreds of families living in the two subdivisions involved.
It appears, further, that respondent Council failed to inform
petitioner of a supposed need for additional data concerning
petitioner PWCC. Considering the need for prompt action, the
Court resolved itself to issue directly a Writ of Mandamus against
the respondent Council commanding it forthwith to act upon
petitioner's Application for Increase in Water Rates in BF Homes
Parañaque (NWRC Case No. 78-037) and on petitioner's
Application for transfer of Certificate of Public Necessity and
Convenience in B.F. Homes Las Piñas (NWRC Case No. 82-161).

PETITION to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

FELICIANO, J.:

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175c9bec908076fa85f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/6
11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 154

Petitioner BF Homes, Inc., is a residential subdivision

owner-operator and as such, constructed water distribution

90

90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

BF Homes, Incorporated us. National Water Resources
Council

systems at its several subdivisions so that residents would

have an adequate supply of potable water. Petitioner
applied for and was granted a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity in respect of its water
distribution system at its Las Piñas subdivision. Petitioner
sought authority from the respondent National Water
Resources Council on 12 March 1982 to transfer the
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to its co-
petitioner. the Philippine Waterworks and Construction
Corporation (PWCC). To date, the application for transfer
has yet to be acted upon by the respondent Council.
Petitioner also has a Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity to operate its water distribution system at
B.F. Homes Parañaque. On 25June 1985, petitioner sought
authority from respondent Council to increase the water
rates at B.F. Homes Parañaque. Petitioner alleges that the
increase in rates was not opposed by the residents of that
subdivision who, as a matter of fact, sought immediate
approval so that the increased rates would enable
petitioner to meet the power bills from the Manila Electric
Company, power being essential for operation of the water
distribution system, Respondent Council similarly failed to
date to act upon this application to increase rates.
Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with the
respondent appellate court to compel respondent Council to
act on the application for transfer of the franchise at Las
Piñas to PWCC and also to act upon the application f or
authority to increase water rates. Respondent appellate
court, in two Resolutions dated respectively 16 February
1987 and 28 May 1987 in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 09135,
dismissed the petition for mandamus upon the ground that
mandamus will not issue to compel the respondent Council
to act on the matters pending before it, since such acts are
not ministerial in nature.
The respondent appellate court fell into reversible error
here. 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

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175c9bec908076fa85f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/6
11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 154

duties involving the exercise of discretion to act in a

particular way or to approve or disapprove a specific
application. In Mackenzie Pio
91

VOL. 154, SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 91

BF Homes, Incorporated vs. National Water Resources
Council

1
vs. Hon. Pio R. Marcos, etc., et al, this Court, through then
Mr. Justice Teehankee, said:

"The petition must fail because under the circumstances of record,

the issuance of the injunction sought is manifestly not a
ministerial duty, viz a duty which is so clear and specific as to
leave no room for the exercise of discretion in its performance and
its discharge requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor
judgment. The issuance of a writ of discretion and mandamus will
not lie to compel the performance of such discretionary function.
It is an established principle that the writ of mandamus may not
be issued to control the discretion of a judge or to compel him to
decide a case or a motion pending before him in a particular way
—the writ being available only 2
to compel him to exercise his
discretion or his jurisdiction. " (Italics supplied)

Again, in Philippine Airlines

3
Employees Associations vs.
Philippine Airlines, Inc., Mme. Justice Melencio-Herrera
wrote:

"x x x But while Certiorari is a proper procedural remedy, this

Court cannot compel respondent Court to lift its Order of
December 6, 1969 or to reconsider the same, for this involves the
exercise of judgment and discretion. It can only compel respondent
Court to act on the pending Motions one way or the other. It is an
established principle that the Writ of Mandamus may not be
issued to control the discretion of a Judge or to compel him to
decide a case or motion in a particular way—the Writ being
available only to compel him to exercise his discretion or
jurisdiction. The law concedes to Judges and Courts the right to
decide questions according 4
to their own judgment and
understanding of the law, " (Italics supplied)

Petitioner, however, does not here seek to compel

respondent Council specifically to approve petitioner's
applications pending before it. What petitioner seeks, and
this it is entitled to, is a writ that would require respondent

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175c9bec908076fa85f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/6
11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 154

Council to consider and deliberate upon the applications

before it, examining in

________________

1 56 SCRA 726 (1974).

2 56 SCRA at 746.
3 111 SCRA 215 (1982).
4 111 SCRA at 219-220.

92

92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

BF Homes, Incorporated vs. National Water Resources
Council

that process whatever evidence lies before it and to act

accordingly, either approving or disapproving the
applications before it, in accordance with applicable law
and jurisprudence and in the best interest of the
community involved. Per the records of this case,
respondent Council has failed, for unexplained reasons, to
exercise its discretion and to act, one way or the other, on
the applications of petitioners for a prolonged period of
time imposing in the process substantial prejudice or
inconvenience upon the many hundreds of families living in
the two subsidivisions involved. It appears, further, that
respondent Council failed to inform petitioner of a
supposed need for additional data concerning petitioner
PWCC.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is GRANTED
due course and the Resolutions dated 16 February 1987
and 28 May 1987 of the respondent appellate court are
hereby set aside. Considering the need for prompt action,
the Court resolved itself to issue directly a Writ of
Mandamus against the respondent Council commanding it
forthwith to act upon petitioner's Application for Increase
in Water Rates in BF Homes Parañaque (NWRC Case No.
78-037) and on petitioner's Application for Transfer of
Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience in B.F.
Homes Las Piñas (NWRC Case No. 82-161). No
pronouncement as to costs, This Resolution is immediately
executory.
SO ORDERED.

          Fernan (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and

Cortés, JJ., concur.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175c9bec908076fa85f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/6
11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 154

Petition granted,

Notes.—Mandamus lies to compel lower court to decide

a case in a particular way where complaint in question
states no cause of action. (Burayan vs. Quintillan, 128
SCRA 276.)
Mandamus is proper remedy to compel payment of
salary for vice-mayor. (Pilar vs. Sangguniang Bayan of
Dasol 128 SCRA 173.)

——oOo——

93

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175c9bec908076fa85f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/6