Case Digest (G.R. No. 84695)
Facts:
National Power Corporation and Fine Chemicals (Phils.), Inc. v. The Court of Appeals and The Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 84695, May 08, 1990, the Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Fine Chemicals (Phils.), Inc. (FINE) was a BOI-registered manufacturer that in September 1986 applied to co-petitioner National Power Corporation (NPC) for a direct power connection. Pursuant to an existing BOI–NPC Memorandum of Understanding, NPC informed The Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) of the application and asked MERALCO what decision it would take regarding FINE’s request. MERALCO responded in letters (December 3, 1986; February 27, 1987; March 20, 1987) objecting to direct taps by large consumers on policy and subsidy grounds and asserting it was financially and technically capable of serving FINE.
NPC informed MERALCO on March 16, 1987 that absent a clear policy barring direct service it would prepare facilities to supply FINE; NPC began direct supply on July 12, 1987. MERALCO then filed a petition for prohibition, mandamus and damages with preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, docketed Civil No. 54733 (filed July 22, 1987), seeking to enjoin NPC and FINE from the direct supply.
FINE opposed MERALCO’s application for preliminary injunction and moved to dismiss MERALCO’s (second amended) petition for failure to state a cause of action; NPC adopted the motion. The RTC (Judge Eutropio Migrino) denied the motion to dismiss in an order dated September 16, 1987, and admitted MERALCO’s evidence for the preliminary mandatory injunction hearing. MERALCO was allowed to file a second amended petition alleging grave and irreparable injury.
FINE filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA) on October 1, 1987; NPC sought leave to intervene and later did so. The CA Special Second Division, in CA‑G.R. SP No. 12939, rendered a decision on August 11, 1988 dismissing the petition. Petitioners then brought the present petition for review...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the interlocutory denial by the trial court of petitioners’ motion to dismiss reviewable and subject to this petition for certiorari?
- Should MERALCO’s petition in the RTC (Civil No. 54733) for prohibition and mandamus be dismisse...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)