Case Digest (G.R. No. 248061)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 248061)
Facts:
More Electric and Power Corporation v. Panay Electric Company, Inc., G.R. Nos. 248061 and 249406, September 15, 2020, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., Jr., writing for the Court. Congress enacted R.A. No. 11212 (approved February 14, 2019) granting a legislative franchise to MORE Electric and Power Corporation (MORE) to operate an electricity distribution system in Iloilo City and, in Section 10, authorizing the grantee to "exercise the power of eminent domain" to acquire distribution assets; Section 17 provided for a transitional regime permitting the incumbent Panay Electric Company, Inc. (PECO) to operate temporarily while expressly preserving MORE’s right to expropriate the existing system. PECO had long owned and operated the Iloilo distribution system pursuant to early legislative franchises (dating to Act No. 2983, Act No. 3035, Act No. 3665 and R.A. No. 5360); its franchise expired in January 2019 and no new franchise was issued to it.After R.A. No. 11212 took effect, MORE filed an expropriation complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City on March 11, 2019 to acquire PECO’s distribution assets. PECO filed on March 6, 2019 a Petition for Declaratory Relief in RTC Mandaluyong (Civil Case No. R‑MND‑19‑00571‑S) challenging the constitutionality of Sections 10 and 17. The Mandaluyong RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on March 14, 2019 enjoining MORE’s expropriation efforts and later, in a July 1, 2019 judgment, declared Sections 10 and 17 void and unconstitutional and made the March 14 TRO permanent insofar as it enjoined MORE and related regulatory acts. The RTC concluded the statutory scheme amounted to an unconstitutional legislated corporate takeover and violated due process and equal protection.
MORE filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (G.R. No. 248061) assailing the RTC judgment; the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a separate petition (G.R. No. 249406) raising the same constitutional question on behalf of the Republic. PECO moved to consolidate the petitions; the Supreme Court granted consolidation and heard the matter En Banc. The parties litigated both substantive constitutional questions and several procedural points (TRO expiry, propriety of judgment on the pleadings, alleged forum shopping). The Court resolved the consolidated Rule 45 petitions on the merits.
Issues:
- Was the Mandaluyong RTC’s disposition—including its judgment on the pleadings and its characterization of the March 14, 2019 TRO as permanent—procedurally proper?
- May the distribution system owned by PECO, already devoted to the public use of electricity distribution, be acquired by MORE through expropriation under Sections 10 and 17 of R.A. No. 11212 for the same public purpose?
- Do Sections 10 and 17 of R.A. No. 11212 comport with the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection (including whether the statutory deposit-of-assessed-value rule and the delegation of eminent domain are constitutionally permissible)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)