G.R. No. 252035 - Cathay Pacific Steel Corp. vs. Commission on Audit

In the 2002 State of the Nation Address, then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo directed electric power producers and distributors to provide price incentives to large electricity users to utilize excess power, spur economic activity, and create jobs.
The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) was tasked to spearhead the program, leading to the adoption of the Special Program to Enhance Electricity Demand (SPEED) on October 11, 2002.
SPEED provided a pricing incentive in the form of a discount (initially set at ₱0.80 per kWh) on the incremental power consumption above the Customer Baseline Load (CBL) for qualified consumers.

NPC was assigned by the ERC to implement the SPEED program effective October 26, 2002.
On April 4, 2003, NPC sought to modify the discount rate from ₱0.80 to ₱0.50 per kWh for the Luzon grid due to a reduction in the general charge rate, which ERC approved effective September 26, 2003.
It was later discovered that NPC deviated from the SPEED guidelines by implementing the discount starting January 2003 rather than the specified October commencement date.
Following a Show Cause Order by ERC on September 29, 2003, NPC admitted its delayed implementation, attributing it to late submission of the certified list of qualified customers by MERALCO, and explained that it had refunded the differential of ₱0.30 per kWh.

On April 27, 2004, ERC determined that NPC had failed to implement the full ₱0.80/kWh discount from October 26, 2002, till it was reduced later; consequently, ERC dispensed with a hearing and immediately directed NPC to grant the proper discount.
NPC’s motion for reconsideration was denied in its Order dated December 19, 2006, which reprimanded NPC and restated the directive to grant the full discount and refund the corresponding amount.
Subsequent ERC orders (including the May 18, 2009 Order and the July 18, 2011 Writ of Execution) reiterated NPC’s obligation to refund CAPASCO (Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation) the SPEED discount amount of ₱24,637,094.65, a sum that reflected the discount due from the delayed implementation.

CAPASCO sought enforcement of its right to the SPEED discount since NPC’s non-compliance forced it to pay the disputed amount to MERALCO.
CAPASCO petitioned for a Money Claim before the Commission on Audit (COA) in December 2013, citing the final and executory decisions from both the Court of Appeals and ERC orders that confirmed its entitlement.
COA, in its Decision No. 2018-256 dated March 15, 2018 and En Banc Notice No. 2020-012 dated February 12, 2020, denied CAPASCO’s claim on the ground that the specific discount amount was only contained in the ERC Writ of Execution rather than in the final Court of Appeals decision.
NPC and the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM) subsequently engaged in a dispute over responsibility for the payment, with PSALM disavowing liability and NPC referring the claim to PSALM pursuant to Section 49 of RA 9136.

Did the Commission on Audit (COA) commit grave abuse of discretion by denying CAPASCO’s money claim despite the final and executory rulings of the Court of Appeals and corresponding ERC orders?

Whether the amount of ₱24,637,094.65, although only explicitly stated in the later ERC orders, was implicitly part of the final judicial decision and thus readily determinable.
Whether NPC’s failure to implement the SPEED discount as mandated rendered it liable to refund CAPASCO, with the attendant responsibility being clearly established in the administrative and judicial records.