Title
PNOC Alternative Fuels Corp. vs. National Grid Corporation of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. 224936
Decision Date
Sep 4, 2019
NGCP validly expropriated PAFC's land for a transmission line project, as the property is patrimonial and NGCP's action aligns with public purpose under RA 9511.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 224936)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Case Origin
    • National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP), a private corporation with a legislative franchise under Republic Act No. 9511 to construct and maintain the national high-voltage transmission grid, filed a Complaint for Expropriation on February 9, 2011 against PNOC Alternative Fuels Corporation (PAFC; formerly PNOC Petrochemicals Development Corporation), Orica Philippines, Inc., and other respondents for a 101,290.42 sq. m. parcel in Barangay Batangas II, Mariveles and Barangay Lamao, Limay, Bataan.
    • NGCP alleged failed negotiations with PAFC, invoked its delegated right of eminent domain under Section 4, R.A. 9511, to acquire the property for its Mariveles-Limay 230 kV Transmission Line Project.
  • Subject Property’s History and Status
    • Originally part of the public domain reserved for horticultural experiments under Executive Order No. 48 (1919), the parcel was withdrawn and declared an industrial reservation by Presidential Proclamation No. 361 (1968), amended and enlarged by P.P. 630 (1969).
    • Presidential Decree No. 949 (1976), as amended by P.D. 1803 (1981), transferred administration to PNOC for development as a petrochemical industrial zone; R.A. 10516 (2013) further expanded permitted uses to energy and energy-allied activities.
    • DOE Circular DC2013-06-0011 (2013 IRR) confirmed PAFC’s ownership per a 1994 Deed of Assignment and mandated proprietary management and development of the industrial estate.
  • Trial Court Proceedings
    • RTC of Mariveles, Bataan, Branch 4 issued the Assailed Order of Expropriation on February 11, 2016, denying PAFC’s and Orica’s defenses, declaring NGCP’s right to expropriate, and directing the appointment of commissioners to determine just compensation.
    • PAFC’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied on April 18, 2016. PAFC filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 (though styled incorrectly) directly before the Supreme Court to annul the expropriation order.

Issues:

  • Procedural Issue
    • Whether PAFC’s direct petition under Rule 45 is proper or whether an appeal should have been elevated to the Court of Appeals via notice or record on appeal.
  • Substantive Issue
    • Whether the RTC correctly determined that NGCP, under Section 4 of R.A. 9511, had the authority to expropriate the subject property.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.