Title
Supreme Court
Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corp. vs. Felisa Agricultural Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 205193
Decision Date
Jul 5, 2021
NPC's liability for just compensation in inverse condemnation case not transferred to PSALM under EPIRA; garnishment of PSALM funds invalid due to separate corporate identity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205193)

Applicable Law

The legal provisions relevant to the case are primarily found in the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA), Presidential Decree No. 1445 (Government Auditing Code), and Republic Act No. 8974, which governs expropriation proceedings.

Facts of the Case

Felisa Agricultural Corporation filed an inverse condemnation case against NPC, asserting a claim for just compensation due to the occupation of its property by NPC for transmission lines since 1978, without payment. In 2010, a Regional Trial Court ordered NPC to pay Felisa Agricultural Corporation a provisional just compensation of PHP 7,845,000. Following the enactment of EPIRA in 2001, which reorganized the electric power industry and transferred various responsibilities from NPC to PSALM and TRANSCO, Felisa Agricultural Corporation sought execution against these corporations to satisfy the judgment.

Proceedings in Lower Courts

After the Regional Trial Court ordered the issuance of a Writ of Execution against NPC, TRANSCO, and PSALM, PSALM contested the issuance of the writ and related Notices of Garnishment, arguing there was grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed PSALM's petition for certiorari, affirming the trial court's orders.

Legal Issues

The primary legal issues include:

  1. Whether PSALM is liable for the payment of the provisional just compensation and related right-of-way claims.
  2. Whether PSALM was deprived of due process when the Writ of Execution was issued against it despite not being a defendant in the inverse condemnation case.
  3. Whether PSALM's properties can be subjected to execution.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PSALM, finding it was not liable for the compensation. The Court determined that the responsibility fell on TRANSCO, which had assumed ownership and the right of eminent domain over the transmission towers after the enactment of EPIRA. The Court reiterated that PSALM and TRANSCO are separate entities, and thus, PSALM should not be held liable for obligations incurred by TRANSCO.

Due Process Violation

The Court held that PSALM was deprived of due process because a writ of execution can only be issued against parties to the case, not against those who weren’t defendants. Since PSALM had not been impleaded in the original inverse condemnation case, the issuance of the Writ of Execution against it was improper.

Execution of a Writ Against PSALM's Assets

The Court declared that the garnishment of PSALM’s properties was unlawful because it is not the judgment obligor in the inverse condemnation case. The garnishment procedure requires that it only target the assets of the actual debtor, which in this case was NPC, and not the separate entity of PSALM.

Government Funds and Execution

The Supreme Court acknowledged that while g

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.