Title
Municipality of Daet vs. Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. L-41745
Decision Date
Aug 28, 1985
Hidalgo Enterprises sought a 70% rate increase; Board granted 55% after hearings. Municipality of Daet opposed, alleging due process violations. SC upheld Board's decision, citing financial necessity and procedural fairness. GAO audit deemed non-mandatory.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-41745)

Background Facts

On August 4, 1974, Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. applied to the Board for a 70% across-the-board increase in its electricity rates. The Board allowed a 65% increase on September 4, 1974, but following a temporary restraining order secured by the Municipality of Daet, a hearing was conducted. Throughout the proceedings, Hidalgo presented its financial records while the Municipality submitted witness depositions to contest the application.

Procedural Developments

Amid the hearings, the Municipality of Daet filed a motion on June 6, 1975, requesting an inventory of Hidalgo’s equipment to ascertain its depreciated value, which would inform the rate-setting process. Despite this motion, the Board proceeded to make a decision on September 1, 1975, granting Hidalgo a 55% rate increase without having resolved the Municipality's motion or awaiting a financial audit by the Government Auditing Office (GAO).

Claims of Due Process Violation

The Municipality contended that the Board’s decision was made with grave abuse of discretion and constituted a violation of due process. They argued that the Board failed to resolve their pending motion and did not await the GAO audit, which was critical for an informed decision.

Court's Evaluation of Due Process

However, the court found no merit in the Municipality’s claims of being denied due process. It was concluded that the Municipality had ample opportunity to present its evidence, which it did through various testimonies and documentation. The decision of the Board reflected a thorough consideration of the evidence presented by both parties.

Weighing the Evidence

After assessing the presented testimonies and financial statements, the Board determined that the evidence from the Municipality was insufficient to justify denying the rate increase. This conclusion was supported by various economic factors affecting Hidalgo, including increased costs of fuel and labor, as well as the declining value of the Philippine peso.

Decision Rationale

In reaching its conclusion, the Board cited financial reports indicating that Hidalgo was operating at a significant loss, with negative returns on invested capital. The awarded 55% increase was deemed justifiable and necessary for the sustainability of the service provided by Hidalgo Enterprises.

Legal Basis for the Decision

Challenging the Board's reliance on Hidalgo's financial statements, the Municipality referenced Commonwealth Act 325, asserting that an audit from the

...continue reading

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