Tagbilaran Mayor Dan Lim personally filed Wednesday his petition opposing the collection of unbilled rates by the Bohol Water Utilities Inc. (BWUI) retroactive to 2006. Lim and Councilor Doni Piquero filed the petition before the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) which set into motion what is expected to be a protracted legal battle in what the mayor described as a fight between a “David” and a “Goliath”. The mayor said he was encouraged by the response of many consumers who have signified their support by signing the position paper at the City Hall. Lim noted that if a compromise will be discussed during the pre-conference, he would be amenable to a rate increase but not all the way to 2006. He also acknowledged that the compromise would cover only those who have signed the petition because those who did not sign have virtually expressed their approval of the retroactive collection.

In his petition, the mayor said BWUI’s action is “unjust, confiscatory and unconscionable”. Lim said he was merely exercising his right when he filed the petition before the Regional Trial Court of Bohol assailing the decision of the NWRB dated Sept. 20, 2006. The mayor said his intention was sincere and noble as it would be for the benefit of the lowly constituents who would be greatly affected by the increase. Unfortunately, Lim said his petition was dismissed on mere technicality which could have been disregarded by the Court of Appeals (CA) since the petition was able to show a reasonable ground why the petition was filed only on Dec. 7, 2006 and not within the 15-day reglamentary period. Since the case has already dragged on for four years, Lim did not elevate the petition anymore to the Supreme Court after the motion for reconsideration on the said decision was denied.

The move not to elevate the case to the Highest Court, however, was with the thought in mind that if the decision would be implemented, it must commence only from the time the CA decision would become final and executory, “but not in 2006” when the questioned NWRB decision was promulgated. If BWUI insisted in collecting the unbilled differentials spread equally in 18 months at the very least, Lim said each consumer in the city would be shouldering an increase of around 100% per month in his water bill during said period. “It should be remembered that (BWUI) is a public utility,” Lim noted. The mayor said the business and operations of a public utility are imbued with public interest. Lim argued that it is the imperative duty of the state to interpose its protective power whenever too much profit becomes the priority of public utilities. He also pointed out that to collect the unbilled amount would result to injustice.

“For instance, an owner of a building who leased out his property will be forced to pay the uncollected amount of differentials if the lessee does not anymore possess the leased property, lest his water connection will be endangered from being cut off by BWUI,” he added. Lim said the decision of the CA did not specifically state that the unbilled rate increase during the pendency of the case shall be collected. He pointed out that while the CA considered the petition for certiorari filed by BWUI, it did not grant BWUI’s motion to execute the decision of the NWRB pending resolution of the issues that it raised. In his petition, Lim asked the NWRB    to order BWUI to cease and desist from collecting the unbilled differentials from its consumers covering the months of Nov. 2006 to June 2010. Lim also asked the NWRB to order BWUI to refund the consumers who have already paid the said unbilled differentials.