 The predecessor of the NWRB is the National Water Resources Council (“NWRC”),

which was created in 1974 under Presidential Decree No. 424, otherwise known as the
“Integrated Reorganization Plan”. It was subsequently renamed as NWRB pursuant to
Executive Order No. 124-A.

 The National Water Resources Board (NWRB) is the leading government agency for
the water sector in the Philippines, regarding water resources and potable water; it is
conferred with policy-making, regulatory and quasi-judicial functions within the
Philippine government. The NWRB is an attached agency of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and responsible for ensuring the optimum
exploitation, utilization, development, conservation and protection of the country's water
resource, consistent with the principles of "Integrated Water Resource Management". The
NWRB Board is composed of five cabinet secretaries, plus a representative from
academia and the NWRB's executive director; the board is chaired by the Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources.

POWER AND FUNCTIONS:

1. Coordinates and integrates water resources dev’t activities

2. Grants & adjudicates water rights

3. Formulate framework plans for water supply

4. Promulgate rules & regulations

5. Imposes fees and charges to water appropriators.

6. Grants permits

7. Imposes penalties for admininistrative Violations

8. Deputize any official or agency of the gov’t to perform any of its functions or activities.

9. Issue writs of execution & enforce decisions with the assistance of local or national
police.

 The NWRC has authority to enter upon private lands.

NOTICE TO OWNERS NECESSARY TO BE ABLE TO:

1. Conduct surveys

2. Hydrologic investigations

3. Other necessary acts including the right to eminent domain

 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

1. Appropriation

2. Utilization

3. Exploitation

4. Development

5. Control
 6. Conservation & protection of waters

Decision immediately executor.

1. Suspended only when bond is filed by appealing party.

2. Except when a competent court issued the suspension.

 All disputes shall be decided in 60 days.

 Decision appealable to the Court of appeals under BP 129, sec. 9(3)

Grounds for appeal: Grave abuse of discretion, question of law, question of law & fact.

WATER CODE PENALTIES

Article 90. The following acts shall be penalized by suspension or revocation of the violator's
water permit or other right to the use of water and/or a fine of not exceeding One Thousand
Pesos (P1,000.00), in the discretion of the Council:

(a)Appropriation of subterranean or ground water for domestic use by an

overlying landowner without registration required by the Council.

(b) Non-observance of any standard of beneficial use of water.

(c) Failure of the appropriator to keep a record of water withdrawal, when

required.

(d) Failure to comply with any of the terms or conditions in a water permit or a
water rights grant.

(e) Unauthorized use of water for a purpose other than that for which a right or
permit was granted.

(f) Construction or repair of any hydraulic work or structure without duly

approved plans and specifications, when required.

(g) Failure to install a regulating and measuring device for the control of the
volume of water appropriated, when required.

(h) Unauthorized sale, lease, or transfer of water and/or water rights.

(i) Failure to provide adequate facilities to prevent or control diseases when

required by the Council in the construction of any work for the storage, diversion,
distribution and utilization of water.

(j) Drilling of a well without permission of the Council.

(k) Utilization of an existing well or ponding or spreading of water for recharging

subterranean or ground water supplies without permission of the Council.

(l) Violation of or non-compliance with any order, rules, or regulations of the

Council.

(m) Illegal taking or diversion of water in an open canal, aqueduct or reservoir.

 (n) Malicious destruction of hydraulic works or structure valued at not exceeding
P5,000.00.

Article 91. A. A fine of not exceeding Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) or imprisonment for
not more than three (3) years, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the Court,
shall be imposed upon any person who commits any of the following acts:

1. Appropriation of water without a water permit, unless such person is

expressly exempted from securing a permit by the provisions of this Code.

2. Unauthorized obstruction of an irrigation canal.

3. Cultivation of a river bed, sand bar or tidal flat without permission.

4. Malicious destruction of hydraulic works or structure valued at not

exceeding Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00).

B. A fine exceeding Three Thousand Pesos P3,000.00) but not more than Six
Thousand Pesos P6,000.00) or imprisonment exceeding three (3) years but not
more than six (6) years, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of
the Court, shall be imposed on any person who commits any of the following acts:

1. Distribution for public consumption of water which adversely affects

the health and safety of the public.

2. Excavation or enlargement of the opening of a hot spring without

permission.

3. Unauthorized obstruction of a river or waterway, or occupancy of a

river bank or seashore without permission.

4. Establishment of a cemetery or a waste disposal area near a source of

water supply or reservoir for domestic municipal use without permission.

5. Constructing, without prior permission of the government agency

concerned, works that produce dangerous or noxious substances, or
performing acts that result in the introduction of sewage, industrial waste,
or any substance that pollutes a source of water supply.

6. Dumping mine tailings and sediments into rivers of waterways without

permission.

7. Malicious destruction of hydraulic works or structure valued more than

Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) but at not exceeding One
Hundred Thousand Peso (100,000.00).

C. A fine exceeding Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) but not more than Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) or imprisonment exceeding six (6) years but not
more than twelve (12) years, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion
of the Court, shall be imposed upon any person who commits any of the following
acts:

1. Misrepresentation of citizenship in order to qualify for water permit.

2. Malicious destruction of a hydraulic works or structure, valued at more

than One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).
Article 92. If the offense is committed by a corporation, trust, firm, partnership, association or
any other juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the President, General Manager,
and other guilty officer or officers of such corporation, trust firm, partnership, association or
entity, without prejudice to the filing of a civil action against said juridical person. If the offender
is an alien, he shall be deported after serving his sentence, without further proceedings.

After final judgment of conviction, the Court upon petition of the prosecution attorney in the
same proceedings, and after due hearing, may, when the public interest so requires, order
suspension of or dissolution of such corporation, trust, firm, partnership, association or juridical
person.

Article 93. All actions for offenses punishable under Article 91 of this Code shall be brought
before the proper court.

Article 94. Actions for offenses punishable under this Code by a fine of not more than Three
Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) or by an imprisonment of not more than three (3) years, or both
such fine and imprisonment, shall prescribe in five (5) years; those punishable by a fine
exceeding Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) but not more than Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00)
or an imprisonment exceeding three (3) years but not more than six (6) years, or both such fine
and imprisonment, shall prescribe in seven (7) years; and those punishable by a fine exceeding
Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) but not more than Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) or an
imprisonment exceeding six (6) years but not more than twelve (12) years, or both such fine and
imprisonment, shall prescribe in ten (10) years.

Tanjay Water District v. Hon. Gabaton, et al., G.R. No.L-63742,Aprit 17, 1989

Facts: Tanjay Water District filed a case against the Municipality of Pamplona and its official to
prevent them from interfering in the management of the Tanjay Waterworks system. Judge
dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, being water by virtue of
Presidential Decree 1067. In another case, Joseflrno Datuin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against Tarlac Water District in the Department of Labor and Employment, which decided in
favor of Datuin. On appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), NLRC
reversed the decision and dismissed thr complaint for lack of jurisdiction holding that Tarlac
Water district is a corporation created by special law, its officers and employees belong to the
civil service and their separation should be governmed by Civil Service Rules and Regulations.

Issue: Whether water districts created under PD No. 198 are private corporations or govemment-
owned or controlled corporations

Supreme Court's Ruling: Both petitions are dismissed without prejudice to the Tanjay Water
District filing their complaint in the NWRC and Datuin seeking redress in the Civil Service
Commission. The Court has already ruled that water districts are quasi public corporations whose
employees belong to the civil service, hence, the dismissal of those employees shall be govemed
by the civil service law, rules and regulations. Inasmuch as PD No. 198, as amended, is the
original charter of Tanjay Water District and Tarlac Water District and all water districts in the
country, they come under the coverage of the civil service law, rules and regulations. PD 1067
likewise provided that NWRC has jurisdiction over all disputes relating to appropriation,
utilization, exploitation, development, control, conservation and protection of waters. Regular
courts only have appellate jurisdiction.

The legal issue in this case is whether the Court of First Instance of Camiguin has jurisdiction to
adjudicate a dispute over water rights for irrigation purposes even if the controversy has not yet
been passed upon by the National Water Resources Council the agency vested with original and
exclusive competence to resolve conflicting c on the appropriation of water resources.
On August 20, 1976, the one hundred thirty-seven petitioners (farmers and owners of ricelands)
filed an injunction suit in the Camiguin court against Pedro P. Romualdo (a lawyer and delegate
to the 1971 Constitutional Convention).

The purpose of the suit was to secure a judicial declaration as to the petitioners' prior vested
rights under article 504 of the Civil Code to use the water of the Anibungan Inobo Ablay and
Tajong Crocks to irrigate their ricelands located upstream in Barrios Lumad and Baylao
Mambajao, Camiguin The petitioners sought to enjoin Romualdo from using the water of the
creeks at night to irrigate his two. hectare riceland located downstream. That nocturnal use was
allegedly prejudicial to the petitioners.

Their version is that their use of the water of the creeks started in 1938; that in 1952 or after the
volcanic eruption, the waters of the creeks were made to converge in a single channel and two
diversion dams were constructed with the help of the municipal government and the Presidential
Arm on Community Development PACD The National Irrigation Administration allegedly
contributed money for the improvement of the dams. The petitioners wanted to convey the
impression that the communal irrigation system was established primarily for the benefit of the
ricelands located upstream.

In July, 1976, respondent or defendant Romualdo started using the water of the creeks by
opening the diversion dams at night. That act provoked the filing of the injunction suit already
mentioned.

Romualdo's version in his answer is that at a conference held on July 29, 1976 among the
petitioners (with their counsel), the provincial commander, the district engineer, the mayor, the
members of the Sangguniang Bayan and Romualdo, it was agreed upon that the water of the
creeks would be used on a rotation basis: the petitioners would use it in the daytime and
Romualdo and the other landowners downstream would use the water at night. The opening and
closing of the dam would be under the control of the provincial commander.

Romualdo alleged that on June 21, 1976 he filed a water permit application with the district
engineer's office as required in Presidential Decree No. 424 so that he could use legitimately the
water to irrigate his riceland located downstream near the seashore in Sitio Boloc-Boloc. The
regional director of the Bureau of Public Works issued to Romualdo on October 5, 1976 a
temporary authority to use the water of the creeks. In contrast, the petitioners did not file any
water permit applications although required to do so by the district engineer's office.

Romualdo interposed the defense that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the suit. He contended that the petitioners' remedy was to file their complaint with the district
engineer's office pursuant to Department Order No. 245 dated September 29, 1958 of the
Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications regarding the determination of water
rights controversies.

Romualdo also invoked Presidential Decree No. 424, which took effect on March 28, 1974 and
which created the National Water Resources Council (to replace the Water Resources
Committee) and vested it with powers to coordinate and integrate water resources development
activities or, according to its section 2, to "determine, adjudicate, and grant water rights" (70 0.
G. 2912). Romualdo argued that Presidential Decree No. 424 repealed article 504 of the Civil
Code which allows the acquisition of the use of public waters by prescription for ten years
Article 504 is the statutory basis of petitioners' alleged preferential water rights.

After the lower court found that on January 14, 1977 Romualdo's temporarily permit to use the
water of the communal irrigation system was cancelled, as directed by the executive director of
the National Water Resources Council, it issued on February 11, 1977 an order enjoining
Romualdo from diverting the water of the creeks to his two-hectare farm.
In the meantime, the Water Code of the Philippines or Presidential Decree No. 1067 was
promulgated on December 31, 1976 (730. G. 3554). Romualdo urged the trial court to dismiss
the injunction suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction because the controversy should first be
passed upon by the National Water Resources Council, as allegedly required under Presidential
Decree No. 424 and under the following provisions of the Water Code which confer original
jurisdiction upon the Council to decide controversies on water rights and which vest appellate
jurisdiction in the Court of First Instance to review the Council's decisions:

ART. 88. The Councils half have original jurisdiction over all disputes relating to
appropriation, utilization exploitation, development, control conservation and
protection of waters within the meaning and context of the provisions of this
Code.

The decisions of the Council on water rights controversies shall be immediately

executory and the enforcement thereof may be suspended only when a bond, in an
amount fixed by the Council to answer for damages occasioned by the suspension
or stay of execution, shall have been filed by the Appealing party, unless the
suspension is by virtue of an order of a competent court.

All disputes shall be decided within sixty (60) days after the parties submit the
same for decision or resolution.

The Council shall have the power to issue writs of execution and enforce its
decisions with the assistance of local or national police agencies.

ART. 89. The decisions of the Council on water rights controversies may be
appealed to the Court of First instance of the province where the subject matter of
the controversy is situated within fifteen (15) days from the date the party appeal
receives a copy of the decision on any of the following grounds: (1) grave abuse
of discretion; (2) question of law; and (3) questions of fact and law.

For lack of jurisdiction and for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, the lower court
dismissed the case in its order of July 18, 1977. Instead of Appealing that order of dismiss to this
Court, as prescribed in Republic Act No. 5440, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the
Court of Appeals which dismissed the petition because the issuance of the writ of certiorari
would not be in aid of its appellate jurisdiction Abe-Abe vs. Judge Manta, CA-G. R. No.
SP07103-R, March 31, 1978).

On August 19, 1978, the same 137 petitioners filed the instant certiorari case for the belated
review of the lower court's order of dismissal .

We hold that the petition is devoid of merit. It is incontestable that the petitioners' immediate
recourse is to ventilate their grievance with the National Water Resources Council which, as
already noted, is the administrative agency exclusively vested with original jurisdiction to settle
water rights disputes-under the Water Code and under Presidential Decree No. 424.

That jurisdiction of the Council under section 2(b) of Presidential Decree No. 424 is reaffirmed
in section 88 of the Water Code and in section 3(d) thereof which provides that the utilization,
exploitation, development, conservation and protection of water resources shall be subject to the
control and regulation of the government through" the Council.

It should be noted that article 100 of the Water Code repealed the provisions of the Civil Code
and the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866 "on ownership of waters, easements relating to
waters, use of public waters and acquisitive prescription on the use of waters, which are
inconsistent with the provisions of the Water Code. Article 100 also repealed the Irrigation Law,
Act No. 2152.
It is also noteworthy that section 3(e) of the Water Code recognizes that "preference in the use
and development of waters shall consider current usages and be responsive to the changing needs
of the country".

Article 95 of the Water Code recognizes vested rights but requires that such rights should be
registered on or before December 31, 1978.

The Code in its article 20 acknowledges that "the measure and t of appropriation of water shall
be beneficial use", a rule found in the Philippine Bill of 1902 (See Sideco vs Sarenas 41 Phil. 80,
82-83).

The Code assumes that it is more expeditious and pragmatic to entrust to an administrative
agency the settlement of water rights disputes rather than require the claimants to go directly to
the court where the proceedings are subject to unavoidable delays which are detrimental to the
parties.

It is patent that the petitioners did not exhaust their administrative remedy. Their complaint
should have been lodged with the National Water Resources Council whose decision is
reviewable by the Court of First Instance as indicated in the aforequoted sections 88 and 89 of
the Water Code.

If a litigant goes to court without first pursuing his administrative remedies, his action is
premature or he has no cause of action to ventilate in court. His case is not ripe for judicial
determination (Aboitiz & Co., Inc. vs. Collector of Customs, L-29466, May 18, 1978, 83 SCRA
265, 271).

"When an adequate remedy may be had within the Executive Department of the government, but
nevertheless, a litigant fails or refuses to avail himself of the same, the judiciary shall decline to
interfere This traditional attitude of the courts is based not only on conveyance but likewise on
respect: convenience of the party litigants and respect for a co equal office in the goverment If a
remedy is available within the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before resort
can be made to (the) courts." (Cruz vs. Del Rosario, 119 Phil. 63, 66.)

The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies before resorting to the court means that there
should be an "orderly procedure which favors a pre administrative sifting process, particularly
with respect to matters peculiarly within the competence of the administrative agency, avoidance
of in. interference with functions of the administrative agency by withholding judicial action
until the administrative process has run its course, and prevention of attempts 'to swamp the
courts by a resort to them in the first instance'" (2 Am Jur 2nd 428; Antonio vs. Tanco, Jr., L-
38135, July 25, 1975, 65 SCRA 448, 454).

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed with costs against the petitioners.