CASE FACTS ISSUE + RULING

MERALCO v. ERB - Edgar Ti’s 3 meters were confiscated on suspicion of tampering Does ERB have JD to order recon? YES
- Disconnection notice was served at night and done without presence of - EO 172 transferred BoE functions to ERB including, “all regulatory and adjudicatory
owner functions covering the energy sector” + authority to grant provisional relief
- ERB ordered reconnection; MERALCO MR denied - immediate disconnection upon written notice may be done “without the need of a
court or administrative order.” Legislature thereby implicitly recognized the
participation of an administrative body although a public utility need not secure a prior
order, whether from the court or from the former, in order to effect a disconnection.
- prohibition against issuance of writs against “courts” does not apply to ERB
KERB v. Barin - EPIRA abolished the ERB EPIRA consti? YES
- Barin et al were ERC Commissioners who issued guidelines for hiring – - Power to create an office comes with the power to abolish (Cory Aquino created and
objected to by KERB abolished).
- KERB: merely a change of name - Abolishing means there is no office to occupy, meaning no tenure to speak of.
- ERC published job ad - Removal implies that office subsists and the occupants are merely separated
therefrom.
- A valid order of abolition must come from proper office + be done in good faith.
NECU v. NAPOCOR - by assailed issuances, more than 2000 NPC Is privatization valid? MOOT
employees have been dismissed or dislocated.  RA 9136 has mandated not only the restructuring of the entire electric power
- NECU is the legitimate labor union and exclusive bargaining agent industry, but also the privatization of the NPC. – Sec. 2 of the law provides that the
policy of the State is to provide for an orderly and transparent privatization of the
assets and liabilities of the NAPOCOR. The law likewise mandates the
privatization of the assets, real and disposable, as well as the IPP contracts of the
NPC shall be privatized.
IDEALS v. PSALM - sale to K Water  The utilization of water by a hydroelectric power plant does not constitute
appropriation of water from its natural source considering that the source of water
(dam) that enters the intake gate of the power plant is an artificial structure
 PSALM is mindful of the State’s duty to protect the public’s right to water when it
sold the AHEPP. In fact, such concern as taken into consideration by PSALM in
devising a privatization scheme for the AHEPP whereby the water allocation is
continuously regulated by the NWRB and the dam and its spillway gates remain
under the ownership and control of NPC
Franco v. ERC - Chairman and Members of ERB were entitled to retirement benefits - no law to support mandamus
and privileges equal to those received by the Chairman and Members of - Lastly, the clear policy of the Constitution is that no elective or appointive public officer
the Commission on Elections. or employee shall receive additional, double or indirect compensation not specifically
- ERC - SC authorized by law.
Mactan Electric v. NPC - MECO filed with the RTC a complaint for damages with prayer for Who has JD? DOE, RA 9136
temporary restraining contending that the letter of termination has strong - The subject matter of the dispute between the parties is neither cross-ownership, nor
indications that NPC will directly supply electric power to MCIAA. abuse of market power, nor cartelization, nor anti-competitive or discriminatory
behavior. Based on the allegations of MECO in its complaint and the essence of the
relief it sought, the subject matter of its dispute with MCIAA, NPC and TRANSCO
involved the distribution of energy resource, specifically the direct supply of electricity
by NPC through TRANSCO to MCIAA, without passing through the distribution system
 of MECO as the franchise holder in the area. Therefore, their dispute was not within the
authority of ERC to resolve.

BF Homes v. MERALCO - Meralco demanded payment but BF Homes and PWCC requested that
the balance demanded was to be applied to the refund. – Meralco
denied. Meralco, without giving notice, cut off the power supply
Batelec II v. EID - EIAB, the Bureau made the determination that BATELEC II was neither
technically nor financially capable of supplying the 69 kv of power supply
to PSC. Thus, the Bureau approved PSC’s application for bulk power
supply with the NPC.
ERB Iligan Light v. CA - ILPI direct conn
Does RTC have JD? NO, ERC
- Pursuant to the EPIRA, it is the ERC that has subject matter on the off-setting of the
amount of refund by the Meralco to a consumer.
May PSC directly connect with NPC? YES
INCAPABILITY + HEARING
- And that after a due hearing and it is established that the affected franchise holder is
incapable or unwilling to match the reliability and rates of NPC, then a direct connection
with NPC may be granted.
NPC decide and hear direct connection? NO

- matter involving the NPC itself

- now the Department of Energy that has jurisdiction over the regulation of the
marketing and the distribution of energy resources.
RA 7638
NPC v. CA and CEPALCO - According to PIA, CEPALCO proved no match to the power demands May the NPC supply power directly to PIA through FPI in the PIE-MO area where
of the industries in PIE- MO that most of these companies operating CEPALCO has a franchise? NO.
therein closed shop. - NPC cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to decide
- Impelled by a desire to provide cheap power costs to power-intensive - DOE has power to determine as the non-rate-fixing jurisdiction, powers and functions
industries operating within the Estate, PIA applied with the NPC for direct of the ERB have been transferred to the Department of Energy.
power connection
Gerochi v. DoE Universal charge Not a tax
No undue deleg
 Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it
leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate, the only thing he will
have to do is to enforce it.
o EPIRA is complete in all its essential terms and conditions, and that it
contains sufficient standards and ERC does not enjoy a wide latitude of
discretion in the determination of the Universal Charge (basis: stranded
debts and stranded contract cost of the NPC by PSALM)
 The second test mandates adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to
determine the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation
from running riot.
o “to ensure the total electrification of the country and the quality, reliability,
security and affordability of the supply of electric power” and “watershed
rehabilitation and management” meet the requirements for valid delegation,
as they provide the limitations on the ERC’s power to formulate the IRR.
FDC v. ERC Universal charge same
tax
Quisumbing v. MERALCO - done before secretary Due process? NO
- 178k  Section 4, RA 7832: Prima facie – authority
 RE: moral damages -- required to give notice of disconnection to an alleged
delinquent customer. Among others, a prior written notice to the customer is
required before disconnection of the service. Failure to give such prior notice
amounts to a tort. “There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time for the
right reason.”
MERALCO v. Sps. Chua Daughter reported hike in consumption; MERALCO inspected and Proper? NO
disconnected (consumer was present)  The IRR of the Anti-Pilferage law provides that in order to constitute prima facie
evidence, the discovery of the circumstances must be personally witnessed and
attested by the consumer concerned.
 SC held that the inclusion of the consumer concerned in the IRR is invalid because
it is in excess of what the law being implemented provides.

RE: injunction
 Sec. 9 of RA 7832 prohibits courts from issuing injunctions or restraining orders
against electric utilities from disconnecting service unless the consumer proves that
the public utility acted with evident bad faith in disconnecting.
 Under the circumstances, the conclusion is that Meralco abused its superior and
dominant position as well as the authority granted to it by law. – hence the
prohibition for injunction cannot apply. Rather, what applies here is an exception:
an injunction can issue when a disconnection has been attended by bad faith or
grave abuse of authority.
MERALCO v. Navarro- Jumper (took MERALCO 3 years to discover)-- notice served on son 3 Injunction Proper even absent bad faith? YES
Domingo hours AFTER disconnection  Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7832 provides: o SECTION 9. Restriction on the
Injunction Issuance of Restraining Orders or Writs of Injunction- No writ of injunction or
restraining order shall be issued by any court against any private electric utility or
rural electric cooperative exercising the right and authority to disconnect electric
service as provided in this Act, unless there is prima facie evidence that the
disconnection was made with evident bad faith or grave abuse of authority.
Unless, therefore, there is prima facie evidence that the disconnection of electric
service was made with evident bad faith or grave abuse of authority, a writ of
injunction or restraining order may not issue against any private electric utility or
rural electric cooperative exercising the right and authority to disconnect such
service.
MERALCO v. Ramos Meter found with outside connection  MERALCO’s contractual right to disconnect electric service arises only after the
Inspection and disconnection were done without the knowledge of customer has been notified of his adjusted bill and has been afforded the
respondents as they were not at home and their house was closed at the opportunity to pay the differential billing.
time.  R.A. 7832 has two requisites for an electric service provider to be authorized to
disconnect its customer’s electric service on the basis of alleged electricity
pilferage: o first, an officer of the law or an authorized ERB representative must be
 present during the inspection of the electric facilities; and o second, even if there is
prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity and the customer is caught in
flagrante delicto committing the acts under Section 4(a), the customer must still be
given due notice prior to the disconnection.
 the law provides that the person who actually consumed the electricity illegally shall
be liable for the differential billing. o It does not ipso facto make liable for payment
of the differential billing the registered customer whose electrical facilities had been
tampered with and utilized for the illegal use of electricity.

**ERB v LAMP: Corporate income tax of DU is not recoverable expense

republic v medina: reasonable rate of return – 12% on the rate base (net of tax)