Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TANJAY WATER DISTRICT v. PEDRO GABATON

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 186450 2010-04-08	NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD v. A. L. ANG NETWORK CARPIO MORALES, J.
Tanjay Water District v. Gabaton [19] is not in point either as the issue raised therein was which between the RTC and the then National Water Resources Council had jurisdiction over disputes in the appropriation, utilization and control of water.
	GR No. 174929 2008-06-27	ENGR. RANULFO C. FELICIANO v. NESTOR P. VILLASIN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As we have held in Tanjay Water District v. Gabaton,[41] Davao City Water District v. Civil Service Commission,[42] and Hagonoy Water District v. National Labor Relations Commission,[43] water districts are government instrumentalities[44] whose officers and employees belong to the civil service. These rulings are in consonance with the provisions of Article IX-B, Section 2 of the Constitution, whose provisions read:The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.
	GR NO. 168780 2007-11-23	BACOLOD CITY WATER DISTRICT v. JUANITO H. BAYONA CARPIO, J.
As a preliminary note, we emphasize that because of CA-G.R. SP No. 45369, there is already a final decision on the determination of the compulsory retirement age of BACIWA employees and on the nullity of the CBA provision declaring 60 years as the compulsory retirement age for BACIWA employees. Moreover, there are a number of cases[16] promulgated before Davao City Water District v. Civil Service Commission,[17] the decision relied upon by BACIWA, that specifically ruled that local water districts are quasi-public corporations whose employees belong to the Civil Service and that the dismissal of employees of local water districts is governed by the Civil Service Law and regulations. Thus, there is no need to decide these matters all over again.
	GR NO. 122855 2005-03-31	METRO ILOILO WATER DISTRICT v. CA TINGA, J.
Relying on the cases of Abe-abe v. Manta[32] and Tanjay Water District v. Gabaton,[33] private respondents maintain that the Water Council is exclusively vested with original jurisdiction to settle water disputes under the Water Code. They claim that the Amistoso and Santos cases do not apply to the instant case since in Amistoso, the issue was the prevention of the flow of water through an irrigation canal, and in Santos, the issue referred to the prevention of the enjoyment of a water right. In contrast, the issue in the instant case is the right to appropriate water which petitioner and some of the private respondents profess to have.