The lawyer of the Bacolod City Water District yesterday asked the Regional Trial Court to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction directing the owners of the Boro-Boro Springs in Brgy. Alangilan, Bacolod City, to allow Baciwa personnel to enter the property.

Jovim Entila, counsel of BACIWA, in his reply memorandum, asked the court to command the defendants Edmundo Sausi and children, and all persons who have control over the only access road leading to the springs, to allow BACIWA and other persons acting for or on its behalf, free and unhampered passage in going to the springs to arrest the possibility of intentional water contamination, and do other things necessary under the circumstances, at any time of the day and night, and to field its own security personnel to avoid any untoward incidents.

The lawyers of the Sausi family filed a position paper before the RTC Tuesday asking for the immediate lifting of the TRO and the dismissal of the injunction case filed against their clients by BACIWA.

RTC Judge Anastacio Rufon granted the TRO sought by Baciwa against Edmundo Sausi and children, to allow its personnel to enter the property to check the reported sabotage of its spring intake box and the alleged diversion of water from the spring, and address the water problem experienced by residents in the eastern portion of Bacolod. The TRO is effective for 20 days.

The position paper of the Sausis was submitted by lawyers Juan Rubrico and Romeo Natino (not Abner Notarte as earlier reported).

The position paper they submitted stated that for the last three years, BACIWA has been informed that the defendant's gates were already closed to it and its personnel for the water district's failure to heed their demands to be compensated for its long and continuous exploitation of their property.

BACIWA could not blame defendants in rejecting it since its use of their property has been illegal from the beginning, it said.

Entila said that in 1929 when Yulo Waterworks tapped Boro-Boro Springs as one of its principal source of water, Ladislao Sausi or any of his heirs never asserted ownership over the property. The same was true when the springs were turned-over by Yulo Waterworks to BACIWA in 1973, he said.

Entila said that Edmundo Sausi, in the early 1980's or thereafter, made concessions with BACIWA, that is, to allow BACIWA to use a portion of the property as a road going to the springs in exchange of his being employed at Baciwa as spring tender. The concession, having been voluntarily offered by Edmundo Sausi himself, already partook of the nature of just compensation, he said.

The defendants said the application of BACIWA for a road right of way must fall because not all the owners of the property were impleaded in the case it filed.

The defendants asked that the complaint filed against them by Baciwa be dismissed for having been filed without authority from its board.

Entila said the issue was already rendered moot and academic when the court took cognizance of BACIWA Board Resolution No. 13 dated Jan. 10, approving the recommendation of the BACIWA management to sign documents pertinent to the filing of civil case against Edmundo Sausi and children, and to file civil and administrative cases against those responsible for diverting the flow of water from the springs.

He said the issue was never raised in defendants' motion to dismiss dated Jan. 11.

The court has scheduled the hearing of the main case filed by Baciwa against the Sausi family today.*CGS

back to top