December 2006 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 166769 and G.R. NO. 166818 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. v. GENARO LUALHATI, ET AL.
EN BANC
[G.R. NO. 166769 : December 6, 2006]
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. GENARO LUALHATI, BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN (BAYAN), KILUSANG MAYO UNO (KMU), GABRIELA, KALIPUNAN NG DAMAYANG MAHIHIRAP (KADAMAY), AND PARTY LIST BAYAN MUNA, Respondents.
[G.R. NO. 166818 : December 6, 2006]
ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. GENARO LUALHATI, BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN (BAYAN), KILUSANG MAYO UNO (KMU), GABRIELA, KALIPUNAN NG DAMAYANG MAHIHIRAP (KADAMAY), AND PARTY LIST BAYAN MUNA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
These consolidated Petitions for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filed by Manila Electric Company, Inc. (MERALCO) and the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), seek to nullify and set aside the 22 July 2004 Decision1 and 24 January 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77559 which annulled and set aside the ERC Decision dated 20 March 2003 and its Order dated 30 May 2003 in ERC Case Nos. 2001-646 and 2001-900.
The relevant facts of the cases are as follows:
On 14 April 2000, MERALCO filed before the former Energy Regulatory Board (ERB), now the ERC, an "Application for Approval of Revision of Rate Schedules and Appraisal of Properties with Prayer for Provisional Authority" which would result in an increase in its basic charge by about thirty centavos per kilowatt hour (Php 0.30/kwh). The application was docketed as ERB Case No. 2000-57 (later re-docketed as ERC Case No. 2001-646).
The following individuals and organizations opposed the application of MERALCO: Mr. Cesar Escosa and Mr. Genaro Lualhati; the Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty; the Alliance of Consumers Against Monopolies (ACAM); the Retired Judges Association of the Philippines; and the National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc. (NASECORE).
The ERB conducted twenty-five hearings on the merits of the application. MERALCO presented seven witnesses, who were cross-examined by the oppositors.
The issues to be resolved by the ERB were the following:
A. MERALCO
1. Whether or not the present rates are reasonable vis -