Title
Energy Regulatory Board vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 127373
Decision Date
Mar 25, 1999
Dispute over NPC's direct power supply to industries within ILPI's franchise area; Court ruled DOE, not ERB, has jurisdiction under RA 7638.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 45450)

Applicable Law

The case is governed primarily by the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and relevant legislation, particularly Republic Act No. 7638, which created the Department of Energy (DOE) and transferred specific regulatory responsibilities from the ERB to the DOE regarding energy resources.

Factual Background

The factual background reveals that the members of AMI, registered enterprises operating within the franchise area of ILPI, were granted direct power supply connections by NPC. In response, ILPI filed a petition with the ERB to discontinue this direct supply, arguing that it was essential for maintaining its franchise rights. The ERB initially attempted to assert jurisdiction over the matter despite AMI's contention that the DOE was the appropriate agency following the legislative changes outlined in Republic Act No. 7638.

Court of Appeals’ Findings

The Court of Appeals ultimately ruled in favor of AMI, determining that the DOE held jurisdiction over the issues of direct power supply connections. The appellate court characterized ILPI's petition as one primarily concerning energy distribution rather than rate fixing, thereby aligning it with the DOE's responsibilities as transferred under Republic Act No. 7638.

Jurisdiction Issue

The primary legal issue is whether the ERB retains jurisdiction to decide matters concerning direct connections of electricity supply in light of the provisions of Republic Act No. 7638. The petitioners argued that the regulatory powers conferred upon the ERB by earlier legislation had not been fully transferred to the DOE. However, the court emphasized that the jurisdiction over energy distribution, including direct connections, is a non-price regulatory matter now under the DOE's auspice.

Contentions of Petitioners and Respondents

Petitioners asserted that the regulatory role of ERB retained authority regarding direct connections, particularly due to previous cabinet policies prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 7638. Contrarily, respondents maintained that the jurisdiction over the matter belongs to the DOE, citing past jurisprudence that affirmed the DOE's authority in energy supply disputes.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling, stating that the jurisdiction over matters involving the distribution of energy resources, including decisions regarding direct connections of electricity, was prop

...continue reading

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