Case Digest (G.R. No. 239829)
Facts:
National Grid Corporation of the Philippines v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 239829, May 29, 2024, First Division, Zalameda, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP); respondent is Manila Electric Company (Meralco). The dispute arises from TRANSCO’s 2011 Contract to Sell to Meralco covering several sub‑transmission assets (STAs), including the Dasmarinas–Abubot–Rosario 115 kV Line and Rosario substation equipment (collectively, the DAR Assets).On April 17, 2012 TRANSCO and Meralco filed a Joint Application with the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) seeking approval of the sale. The ERC set hearings and subsequently issued an April 22, 2013 Decision that approved the sale of some STAs but disapproved the sale of the DAR Assets, reasoning that the DAR Assets were used to serve more than one distribution utility (including CEZ/PEZA) and, under Section 8 of the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA), a consortium of all connected distribution utilities must be formed before divestment.
Meralco and TRANSCO sought reconsideration; the ERC denied relief in orders dated May 5 and June 16, 2014. After PEZA indicated a legal impediment to joining a consortium (August 2014), Meralco moved to re‑open proceedings; the ERC treated the motion as raising supervening matters and, in its March 4, 2015 Third Order, denied the motion and reaffirmed that a consortium was required and that the DAR Assets should be reclassified as transmission assets in light of a proposed generator connection. Meralco petitioned the Court of Appeals (Rule 43).
The CA (Fourteenth Division) issued a decision on August 12, 2016 dismissing Meralco’s petition on both procedural and substantive grounds, upholding the ERC’s mandatory‑consortium interpretation. Meralco moved for reconsideration; in an Amended Decision dated September 15, 2017, the CA granted reconsideration, vacated its earlier decision, reversed and set aside the ERC orders, and approved the sale of the DAR Assets — reasoning that PEZA validly waived its right and t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to entertain Meralco’s petition for review of the ERC’s orders?
- Whether the CA erred in ruling that the consortium and franchise requirements under Section 8 of the EPIRA may be waived by a connected distribution utility.
- Whether the CA’s interpretation of Section 8 amounted to judicial legislation.
- Whether the CA erred in overturning the ERC’s consistent, specialized rulings regarding the consortium requirement and classification of STAs.
- Whether the DAR Assets are transmission assets and thus no l...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)