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.