The owners of the Boro-Boro Springs in Brgy. Alangilan, Bacolod City, filed a motion through their lawyers for reconsideration last week of the order of the court which granted the injunction case filed by the Bacolod City Water District against them.

On Jan. 31 the Regional Trial Court issued an order granting the motion and writ of preliminary injunction filed by Baciwa, and directed the owners, Edmundo Sausi and children, to comply with the terms and conditions of the temporary restraining order.

In their motion for reconsideration Romeo Natino and Juan Rubrico, legal counsels of the Sausis, claimed that the court has no jurisdiction over the case so the case should be dismissed. They said the judge gravely erred or committed grave abuse of discretion when he allowed Baciwa's complaint despite the absence of authority.

While Baciwa's main action is for injunction, however, it sought for the establishment of right of way, which the lawyers, said involves property ownership. They said the court has no right to adjudicate any claim on the other two lots owned by the intestate estate of the late Ladislao Sausi and Pilar Balcera now pending at RTC Branch 42.

The owners of lots 1549 and 1017 closed the gates leading to Spring no. 2 located in lot 1017 last week and could not be faulted in doing so because they are not impleaded in the case, they said.

The lawyers said the power to exercise eminent domain is lodged only in the National Water Resources Board, so the case should be referred to it first, they said.

They asked the court to recall its Jan. 31 order and dismiss the case.

Meanwhile, Ivan Solidum, the legal counsel of Vicente Villaruz et al, the heirs of the late Ladislao Saosao/Sausi, asked the court to deny the "urgent motion to break open the gates etc" filed by Baciwa for lack of merit.

He said the lots are properties of Ladislao Saosao which, in effect, are under the custody of the court.

Solidum said the Supreme Court has ruled that "the court does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction directed to persons or officers not parties in the proceeding" (Nepomuceno, et al vs Ocampo et al) for a writ of preliminary injunction addressed to persons not parties to the case is void.

On the other hand, Baciwa's legal counsel Jovim Entila had filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint and admit the second amended complaint which includes the other owners.*CGS

back to top