|
Bohol
Water Utilities Inc. (BWUI) is seeking an extension to file
a petition for certiorari and a temporary restraining order
at the Court of Appeals (CA) after it failed to meet the 60-day
deadline to appeal the rulings of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) nullifying the water utility's 40% rate hike.
In
its motion filed at the CA in Cebu City, Bohol Water argues
that the appellate court should grant them 15 more days starting
February 13, when Bohol Water was given 60-days, or until
February 28, to submit its appeal of the lower court decisions.
If
the CA denies the motion for extension, the implementation
of the 40% water rate increase is automatically forfeited.
|
|
|
It
may be recalled that last December 7, 2006 City Mayor
Dan Lim representing the city government of Tagbilaran
filed at the RTC an appeal to nullify a decision of
the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) granting Bohol
Water's application for a water rate increase.
The
RTC, through Executive Judge Pablo Magdoza, previously
granted a 72-hour TRO and was later extended to 17 more
days by Branch 47 Presiding Judge Suceso Arcamo when
the case was raffled off to his sala on December 11,
2006.
|
On
the same day, Bohol Water filed a motion to re-raffle the
case as it (Bohol Water) was not served the order setting
the date and time of the raffle, thus, failing to attend the
same. The water utility firm also filed an opposition to the
72-hour TRO.
Moreover,
Bohol Water asked for the inhibition of Magdoza and Arcamo
as both have ruled against Bohol Water in a previous case.
All
these motions by Bohol Water were denied while, on the same
day, the RTC directed Bohol Water to cease and desist from
implementing the new water rates.
Bohol
Water stated in their CA motion that in rendering these decisions,
the RTC "acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion" and "grossly
contravened the applicable laws of jurisprudence."
However,
Bohol Water could not file its petition for certiorari until
February 13 due to the unavailability of its lawyer, Atty.
Remegio Ancheta II who is also handling the case of Bohol
Water and the provincial government's intra-corporate complaint
in connection to the 40% water rate hike and the recent public
hearing of Bohol Water's sister firm Bohol Light Company Inc.
for its capital projects this year.
As
indicated in their December 2006 to January 2007 billings,
Bohol Water has specified that they are still using the old
water rates due to the pending petition of the city government.
Despite
this development, city legal counsel Doni Piquero is preparing
to present its witness Engr. Francisco Ceniza, the provincial
government's representative to the Bohol Water board of directors.
Ceniza
will testify on the ground that the water rate increase was
not approved by the Bohol Water board.
|
