Case Summary (G.R. No. 187420)
Applicable Law
The legal basis for this case is primarily found in the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (Republic Act No. 9136), specifically Section 78, which pertains to the issuance of injunctions against the enforcement of its provisions.
Background of the Case
EPIRA aims to privatize the assets of NAPOCOR. Following this legislative intent, PSALM was created to manage the sale of NAPOCOR’s assets and oversee its obligations. The Operation and Maintenance Agreement, signed on March 9, 2009, detailed the operational responsibilities of NAPOCOR concerning its assets, while also stipulating budget approval processes and revenue remittances to PSALM.
Origin of Dispute
In 2008, NAPOCOR's then-President, Cyril C. Del Callar, questioned PSALM's authority regarding asset management and revenue control, which was subsequently echoed in a letter from Representative Arnulfo P. Fuentebella. The letters highlighted that PSALM's role should remain limited to asset management rather than operational control, alleging PSALM was overreaching its statutory mandates.
Petition for Injunction
The petitioners seek to permanently enjoin the operation and enforcement of the Operation and Maintenance Agreement, claiming it violates EPIRA by misclassifying revenues as PSALM’s property. They contend that only net profits, not overall revenues, are governed by PSALM under Section 55 of EPIRA, thus asserting the agreement is unconstitutional.
Legal Arguments
The petitioners argue that since they are not parties to the Operation and Maintenance Agreement, they lack the capacity to file for injunctive relief. They further contend that the provisions mandating the remittance of NAPOCOR's revenues to PSALM and requiring NAPOCOR to submit budget proposals for PSALM’s approval infringe upon NAPOCOR's governance as defined in its charter.
Contrarily, the respondents assert that the agreement is valid under EPIRA and argue that PSALM's ownership encompasses all revenues generated from NAPOCOR’s operations. They highlight that EPIRA does not impose limitations on the revenues derived from the operation of the generation assets.
Court's Ruling on Cause of Action
The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners, not being privy to the Operation and Maintenance Agreement, do not have standing to challenge its validity. The Court emphasized that the notion of 'real party in interest' means petitioners must demonstrate an injury directly resulting from the agreement, which they failed to do.
Inquiry into EPIRA Compliance
The Court clarified that the provisions of the Operation and Maintenanc
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 187420)
Case Overview
- The case revolves around a petition for injunction filed under Section 78 of the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA).
- Petitioners are seeking to permanently enjoin the implementation of the Operation and Maintenance Agreement (OMA) executed between the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) and the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM).
- Petitioners argue that the OMA is void as it allegedly contravenes the provisions of EPIRA.
Background of EPIRA
- EPIRA was signed into law on June 8, 2001, aimed at reforming the electric power industry, including the privatization of NAPOCOR assets.
- PSALM was established to manage the sale, disposition, and privatization of NAPOCOR's assets and liabilities.
- The OMA, drafted in 2008 and signed in 2009, outlines the operational and maintenance responsibilities of NAPOCOR until the transfer of assets to PSALM.
Contentions of the Petitioners
- Petitioners argue that the OMA allows PSALM to control NAPOCOR’s revenues derived from the operation of undisposed assets, which they claim violates EPIRA since such revenues should belong to NAPOCOR.
- They assert that PSALM's ownership is limited