This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-09-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| It is clear from the allegations that the complaint involved the determination and enforcement of petitioner's right under PD 198 to impose production assessments, not the appropriation and use of water and the adjudication of the parties' respective water rights.[19] It was admitted that petitioner was a duly constituted water district. Respondent, on the other hand, obtained water permits from the NWRB. Both thus had respective rights to the use of the water. But petitioner was not challenging the water permits acquired by respondent. As we held in Atis v. CA:[20] | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The petitions having raised a judicial question, it follows that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, on the basis of which the petitions were dismissed by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, does not even come to play.[36] | |||||