Case Digest (G.R. No. 71562)
Facts:
In Philippine Sinter Corporation and Phividec Industrial Authority vs. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc. (G.R. No. 127371, April 25, 2002), petitioners Philippine Sinter Corporation (PSC) and Phividec Industrial Authority (PIA) sought to enjoin respondent Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc. (CEPALCO) from cutting PSC’s direct power supply from the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR). CEPALCO, a grantee of a legislative franchise under R.A. 3247 (as amended by R.A. 3570 and R.A. 6020), had petitioned the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) in ERB Case No. 89-430 to discontinue NAPOCOR’s direct industrial connections within its franchise area pursuant to the Cabinet Memorandum of January 21, 1987. After public hearings, the ERB granted CEPALCO’s petition on July 17, 1992; NAPOCOR’s timely motion for reconsideration was denied and this Court affirmed the ERB decision in September 1993, making it final and executory. To implement the ruling, CEPALCO notified PSC, an indu
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 71562)
Facts:
- Cabinet Policy Reform and ERB Proceedings
- On January 21, 1987, President Aquino issued Cabinet Memorandum No. 2 directing the continuation of direct NPC connections for BOI-registered industries until the regulatory board deems them unnecessary, based on utilities’ financial and technical capability.
- CEPALCO, franchisee for Cagayan de Oro, Villanueva, Jasaan, Tagoloan, filed ERB Case No. 89-430 seeking discontinuation of all existing NPC direct supplies within its franchise area. Public hearings were held, and BOI and NPC were notified.
- ERB Decision and Its Finality
- On July 17, 1992, the ERB granted CEPALCO’s petition, finding it technically and financially capable (85% passing mark) and ordering NPC direct supplies to industrial consumers within CEPALCO’s area discontinued.
- NPC’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Its late petition for relief with the Court of Appeals was dismissed; the Supreme Court affirmed, rendering the ERB decision final on September 22, 1993.
- PSC–PIA Injunction Suit in RTC and CA
- Upon ERB’s final decision, CEPALCO notified Philippine Sinter Corporation (PSC) within the PHIVIDEC Industrial Estate to disconnect its NPC supply and transfer to CEPALCO. PSC, under contract with NPC until July 26, 1996, and PIA (estate manager), sought a preliminary injunction in RTC Cagayan de Oro (Civil Case No. 94-186). They alleged:
- A subsisting PSC–NPC contract;
- Lack of personal notice and non-impleader in ERB case;
- PHIVIDEC charter (P.D. 538) grants PIA franchise over Tagoloan and Villanueva.
- On April 11, 1994, the RTC granted the injunction, barring CEPALCO from cutting PSC’s NPC supply until PSC’s NPC contract expiration (July 26, 1996). The RTC denied CEPALCO’s reconsideration (Dec. 13, 1994).
- CEPALCO appealed; on July 23, 1996, the Court of Appeals set aside the RTC decision and dissolved the injunction. A subsequent motion for reconsideration by PSC and PIA was denied (Dec. 2, 1996).
- Petition for Review to the Supreme Court
- PSC and PIA filed a Rule 45 petition (G.R. No. 127371) challenging the CA decision.
- They raised six issues concerning ERB decision’s validity, notice, finality, scope of PIA’s franchise, and applicability of a separate PIA vs. CEPALCO case (Civil Case No. 91-383).
Issues:
- Whether the ERB decision contradicts the Cabinet Policy Reform.
- Whether the ERB decision adjudicated rights to the prejudice of petitioners (PIA and PSC).
- Whether the Cabinet Policy Reform can amend or override P.D. 538 (PIA’s charter).
- Whether PIA and PSC were entitled to personal notice of CEPALCO’s ERB petition.
- Whether Civil Case No. 91-383 (PIA vs. CEPALCO) mandates injunctive relief against the ERB decision.
- Whether the ERB decision is non-final and non-executory, hence subject to periodic review.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)