Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 Phil. Waterworks and Construction Corp. 3 1) Rep. vs. MERALCO and 2) LAMP vs. MERALCO
2 It wasn’t discussed why there was an excess of P0.167/kwh, it can only be presumed that Meralco
overcharged for some time starting in Feb 1998 that’s why it was ordered to refund its customers
1
b. Meralco is a utility company whose business activity is wholly regulated
by the ERC. It’s the one tasked to approve the guidelines, schedules 2. The task to approve the guidelines, schedules, and details of the refund by Meralco
and details of the refund. to its consumers falls upon the ERC.
c. The SC’s decision is in accordance w/ ERB’s decision, hence Meralco - By filing their Petition before the RTC, BF and PWCC intend to collect their refund
has to wait for the schedule and details of the refund to be approved w/out submitting to the approved schedule of the ERC, and in effect, enjoy
by the ERC before it can comply w/ the SC decision. preferential right over the other equally situated Meralco consumers.
d. It has a right to disconnect because as a public utility, it is its legal duty
to furnish services to the general public w/out arbitrary discrimination. So 3. Sec. 8, EO 172 vested on the ERB the authority to grant provisional relief4. This
they must disconnect electric services of petitioners for failure to pay. provision is still applicable to the ERC as it succeeded ERB (per Sec. 80, EPIRA)
4. RTC issued an Order granting the application for a writ of preliminary INJUNCTION DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Reason: All the requisites for its issuance are complied with. There is an Petition is DENIED. RTC is ordered to dismiss BF Homes’ and PWCC’s petition for the
urgent need to issue prelim. injunction in order to prevent social unrest issuance of a preliminary injunction.
in the community for having been deprived of the use and enjoyment of
waters through petitioners’ water pumps.
5. Upon appeal, CA reversed the RTC ruling that it had no jurisdiction over the subject
DIGESTER: Viveka
matter. ERC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases contesting rates, fees,
fines and penalties imposed by itself (Sec. 43(u), RA 9136 or EPIRA).
6. Hence, this case before the SC.
ISSUE with HOLDING: Whether jurisdiction over the subject matter lies with the RTC
or the ERC (Energy Regulatory Board). – ERC
A. RA 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act “EPIRA”) was enacted in 2001. Sec. 44 and
80 thereof transferred the powers & functions of the ERB to the ERC. It also conferred new
powers to the ERC (Sec. 43). Sec. 43(u) says:
(u) The ERC shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases contesting rates, fees,
fines and penalties imposed by the ERC in the exercise of the abovementioned powers, functions
and responsibilities and over all cases involving disputes between and among participants or
players in the energy sector.
B. Administrative agencies, like the ERC are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and, as
such, could wield only such as are specifically granted to them by the enabling
statutes. In relation there to is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction involving
matters that demand the special competence of administrative agencies even if
the question involved is also judicial in nature. Courts will not resolve a
controversy involving a question w/in the jurisdiction of an administrative
tribunal, especially when the question demands the sound exercise of
administrative discretion requiring special knowledge, experience and services
of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.
C. It bears to stress that in the Meralco Refund Cases, SC only affirmed the ERB
decision fixing just and reasonable rate for the electric services of Meralco and granting
refund to Meralco consumers of the amount they overpaid.