The Regional Trial Court dismissed Wednesday the motion filed by the owners of the Boro-Boro Springs in Brgy. Alangilan, Bacolod City to dismiss the injunction case filed by the Bacolod City Water District.

Baciwa filed a complaint for injunction with prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and establishment of right of way against Edmundo Sausi and children on Jan. 10.

This came after the owners of the springs closed the only access road leading to their property on Jan. 8, preventing the Baciwa personnel from inspecting the reported sabotage of spring no. 2 and the diversion of its water. Meanwhile, the court also ordered Baciwa to post a bond of P200,000 to answer for whatever damages the defendants may suffer in connection with the case, in the event that it will be decided on the merits in their favor.

RTC Judge Anastacio Rufon, in his order dated Jan. 31, said that although the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is issued, the main case of injunction and other claims of the parties will be determined by the evidence presented in a full-blown trial of the case on the merits where the parties would adduce evidence to support their respective stand.

The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case filed against them by Baciwa for lack of authority because there was no board resolution authorizing Baciwa general manager Vicente Petierre to institute the case.

The court holds that the board resolution authorizing Petierre to file a case was properly issued by Baciwa and although it is challenged by the defendants, yet, the failure to attach it is not one of the grounds for a motion to dismiss under Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court. It said the general business of corporations is frequently entrusted to the management of a general manager or managing officer who has the power to bind the corporation by acts within the scope of his authority.

Rufon said the case involves public interest. "Subordinate to public interests, ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of property like agricultural landholdings, we can say that property rights are not absolute and complete," he said.

He said public interest demands that restrictions are levied on them for everybody to survive, to remain at peace and to live with one another in an era of tranquility and contentment (Almeda vs. Court of Appeals).

Rufon said that, under the new Constitution, property ownership is impressed with social function. He said property use must not only be for the benefit of the owner, but of the society as well. The State, in the promotion of social justice, may "regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of property, and equitably diffuse property…ownership and profits," he said.*CGS

back to top