Facts:
Private respondent
CCM Gas Corporation was a customer of petitioner
Manila Electric Company (
MERALCO). On May 23, 1984,
CCM Gas was billed
P272,684.81 for electric consumption covering April 22, 1984 to May 22, 1984, broken down into actual electric energy consumed (
P51,383.98),
Purchased Power Adjustment (
P213,696.00), and
Exchange Rate Adjustment (
P7,604.83), with a total of
P272,684.81. Although the account was due on May 29, 1984,
CCM Gas withheld payment because it had questions concerning the
Purchased Power Adjustment. On May 31, 1984, MERALCO notified
CCM Gas of disconnection if the account was not paid on or before June 5, 1984.
CCM Gas protested and made a partial payment of
P52,684.81, but it demanded to know how the Purchased Power Adjustment amount of
P213,696.00 had been arrived at. Since MERALCO did not provide the information,
CCM Gas filed an action in the
Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Metro Manila, praying for moral damages and attorneys’ fees, and for a
writ of preliminary injunction to restrain MERALCO from disconnecting its electric supply, together with a
temporary restraining order pending the application for the writ of preliminary injunction. On June 8, 1984, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order, and on July 21, 1984 it issued a writ of preliminary injunction upon
CCM Gas’s posting of a bond of
P1,031,999.69; after the bond was posted on August 6, 1984, the writ was issued on August 13, 1984. On October 4, 1984, MERALCO filed, by leave of court, an amended answer raising as special and affirmative defenses lack of jurisdiction and lack of valid cause of action. On April 30, 1985, the trial court dismissed the case and lifted the injunction, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction on the basis that the controversy was cognizable by the
Board of Energy, because it involved the Purchased Power Adjustment allegedly imposed arbitrarily and unilaterally without public hearing, and therefore claimed to be unconstitutional and oppressive.
CCM Gas and MERALCO both moved and litigated after receipt of the order; MERALCO later sought damages on the bond, but the trial court denied MERALCO’s claim on the ground that dismissal was for lack of jurisdiction and there had been no trial or final judgment. The parties appealed. On November 21, 1991, the
Court of Appeals set aside the trial court’s dismissal, ordered the trial court to reissue the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining MERALCO from disconnecting
CCM Gas until it furnished a statement showing the basis for computing the Purchased Power Adjustment applicable to
CCM Gas, directed the trial court to reconcile credits and debits between the parties, and required the case to be heard with dispatch. MERALCO’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 17, 1991, prompting MERALCO’s petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, raising whether
CCM Gas’ appeal should have been dismissed for alleged lateness of its motion for reconsideration, and whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the case.
Issues:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in entertaining
CCM Gas’ appeal on the basis that the April 30, 1985 trial court order dismissing the complaint had become final and executory because the motion for reconsideration was filed one day late, and whether the trial court had jurisdiction over
CCM Gas’ action seeking a breakdown of MERALCO’s Purchased Power Adjustment.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: