Lawyerly

GR No. 156208

2014-06-30

NPC DRIVERS v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION

BRION, J.

Statutory construction rules dictate that a law should be read in its entirety.[129] If the intent was to limit "existing" only to the NPC generation assets, then the word should not have been omitted in other EPIRA provisions that referred to the same NPC generation assets, to wit: Section 47. NPC Privatization. Except for the assets of SPUG, the generation assets, real estate, and other disposable assets as well as IPP contracts of NPC shall be privatized in accordance with this Act. Within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act, the PSALM Corp shall submit a plan for the endorsement by the Joint Congressional Power Commission and the approval of the President of the Philippines, on the total privatization of the generation assets, real estate, other disposable assets as well as existing IPP contracts of NPC and thereafter, implement the same, in accordance with the following guidelines, except as provided for in Paragraph (f) herein:

GR No. 175750-51

2014-04-02

SILVERINA E. CONSIGNA v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

Grave abuse of discretion means "such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[21]

GR Nos. 156556-57

2011-10-04

ENRIQUE U. BETOY v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS

PERALTA, J.

In Freedom from Debt Coalition v. Energy Regulatory Commission,[21] this Court discussed why there was a need for a shift towards the privatization and restructuring of the electric power industry, to wit: One of the landmark pieces of legislation enacted by Congress in recent years is the EPIRA. It established a new policy, legal structure and regulatory framework for the electric power industry.

GR No. 171624

2010-12-06

BF HOMES v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Thereafter, on June 8, 2001, Republic Act No. 9136, known as the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA), was enacted, providing a framework for restructuring the electric power industry. One of the avowed purposes of the EPIRA is to establish a strong and purely independent regulatory body. The Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) was abolished and its powers and functions not inconsistent with the provision of the EPIRA were expressly transferred to the ERC.[26]

GR No. 180643

2008-03-25

ROMULO L. NERI v. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Grave abuse of discretion means "such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law."[60]

GR No. 176478

2008-02-04

LORNA A. MEDINA v. COA

TINGA, J,

Administrative Order No. 07, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, particularly governs the procedure in administrative proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman. The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman was issued pursuant to the authority vested in the Office of the Ombudsman under Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989." When an administrative agency promulgates rules and regulations, it "makes" a new law with the force and effect of a valid law. Rules and regulations when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred upon the administrative agency by law, partake of the nature of a statute.[20]

GR NO. 159796

2007-07-17

ROMEO P. GERICHI v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)

NACHURA, J.

It may be noted that this is not the first time that the ERC's conferred powers were challenged. In Freedom from Debt Coalition v. Energy Regulatory Commission,[61] the Court had occasion to say:In determining the extent of powers possessed by the ERC, the provisions of the EPIRA must not be read in separate parts. Rather, the law must be read in its entirety, because a statute is passed as a whole, and is animated by one general purpose and intent. Its meaning cannot to be extracted from any single part thereof but from a general consideration of the statute as a whole. Considering the intent of Congress in enacting the EPIRA and reading the statute in its entirety, it is plain to see that the law has expanded the jurisdiction of the regulatory body, the ERC in this case, to enable the latter to implement the reforms sought to be accomplished by the EPIRA. When the legislators decided to broaden the jurisdiction of the ERC, they did not intend to abolish or reduce the powers already conferred upon ERC's predecessors. To sustain the view that the ERC possesses only the powers and functions listed under Section 43 of the EPIRA is to frustrate the objectives of the law.

GR NO. 150974

2007-06-29

KAPISANAN NG MGA KAWANI NG ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD v. COMMISSIONER FE B. BARIN

CARPIO, J.

To achieve its aforestated goal, the law has reconfigured the organization of the regulatory body. x x x[15]

GR NO. 163935

2006-08-16

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS FOR REFORMS v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

CALLEJO, SR., J.

In Freedom from Debt Coalition v. ERC,[6] the Court outlined the procedure enjoined by the above provisions, thus:(1) The applicant must file with the ERC a verified application/petition for rate adjustment. It must indicate that a copy thereof was received by the legislative body of the LGU concerned. It must also include a certification of the notice of publication thereof in a newspaper of general circulation in the same locality.

GR NO. 163935

2006-02-02

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS FOR REFORMS v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

CALLEJO, SR., J.

According to the petitioners, the June 2, 2004 ERC Order is devoid of any basis as respondent MERALCO did not comply with the requisite publication, i.e., its amended application was not published in a newspaper of general circulation. As a result of the omission, petitioners were not able to file their comments on respondent MERALCO's amended application for the increase of its generation charge. Invoking the Court's pronouncements in Freedom from Debt Coalition v. ERC and MERALCO,[16] petitioners conclude that failure to comply with the publication requirement renders the June 2, 2004 ERC Order null and void.

	GR No. 156208 2014-06-30	NPC DRIVERS v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION BRION, J.
Statutory construction rules dictate that a law should be read in its entirety.[129] If the intent was to limit "existing" only to the NPC generation assets, then the word should not have been omitted in other EPIRA provisions that referred to the same NPC generation assets, to wit: Section 47. NPC Privatization. Except for the assets of SPUG, the generation assets, real estate, and other disposable assets as well as IPP contracts of NPC shall be privatized in accordance with this Act. Within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act, the PSALM Corp shall submit a plan for the endorsement by the Joint Congressional Power Commission and the approval of the President of the Philippines, on the total privatization of the generation assets, real estate, other disposable assets as well as existing IPP contracts of NPC and thereafter, implement the same, in accordance with the following guidelines, except as provided for in Paragraph (f) herein:
	GR No. 175750-51 2014-04-02	SILVERINA E. CONSIGNA v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
Grave abuse of discretion means "such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[21]
	GR Nos. 156556-57 2011-10-04	ENRIQUE U. BETOY v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS PERALTA, J.
In Freedom from Debt Coalition v. Energy Regulatory Commission,[21] this Court discussed why there was a need for a shift towards the privatization and restructuring of the electric power industry, to wit: One of the landmark pieces of legislation enacted by Congress in recent years is the EPIRA. It established a new policy, legal structure and regulatory framework for the electric power industry.
	GR No. 171624 2010-12-06	BF HOMES v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Thereafter, on June 8, 2001, Republic Act No. 9136, known as the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA), was enacted, providing a framework for restructuring the electric power industry. One of the avowed purposes of the EPIRA is to establish a strong and purely independent regulatory body. The Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) was abolished and its powers and functions not inconsistent with the provision of the EPIRA were expressly transferred to the ERC.[26]
	GR No. 180643 2008-03-25	ROMULO L. NERI v. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Grave abuse of discretion means "such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law."[60]
	GR No. 176478 2008-02-04	LORNA A. MEDINA v. COA TINGA, J,
Administrative Order No. 07, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, particularly governs the procedure in administrative proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman. The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman was issued pursuant to the authority vested in the Office of the Ombudsman under Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989." When an administrative agency promulgates rules and regulations, it "makes" a new law with the force and effect of a valid law. Rules and regulations when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred upon the administrative agency by law, partake of the nature of a statute.[20]
	GR NO. 159796 2007-07-17	ROMEO P. GERICHI v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) NACHURA, J.
It may be noted that this is not the first time that the ERC's conferred powers were challenged. In Freedom from Debt Coalition v. Energy Regulatory Commission,[61] the Court had occasion to say:In determining the extent of powers possessed by the ERC, the provisions of the EPIRA must not be read in separate parts. Rather, the law must be read in its entirety, because a statute is passed as a whole, and is animated by one general purpose and intent. Its meaning cannot to be extracted from any single part thereof but from a general consideration of the statute as a whole. Considering the intent of Congress in enacting the EPIRA and reading the statute in its entirety, it is plain to see that the law has expanded the jurisdiction of the regulatory body, the ERC in this case, to enable the latter to implement the reforms sought to be accomplished by the EPIRA. When the legislators decided to broaden the jurisdiction of the ERC, they did not intend to abolish or reduce the powers already conferred upon ERC's predecessors. To sustain the view that the ERC possesses only the powers and functions listed under Section 43 of the EPIRA is to frustrate the objectives of the law.
	GR NO. 150974 2007-06-29	KAPISANAN NG MGA KAWANI NG ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD v. COMMISSIONER FE B. BARIN CARPIO, J.
To achieve its aforestated goal, the law has reconfigured the organization of the regulatory body. x x x[15]
	GR NO. 163935 2006-08-16	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS FOR REFORMS v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION CALLEJO, SR., J.
In Freedom from Debt Coalition v. ERC,[6] the Court outlined the procedure enjoined by the above provisions, thus:(1) The applicant must file with the ERC a verified application/petition for rate adjustment. It must indicate that a copy thereof was received by the legislative body of the LGU concerned. It must also include a certification of the notice of publication thereof in a newspaper of general circulation in the same locality.
	GR NO. 163935 2006-02-02	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS FOR REFORMS v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION CALLEJO, SR., J.
According to the petitioners, the June 2, 2004 ERC Order is devoid of any basis as respondent MERALCO did not comply with the requisite publication, i.e., its amended application was not published in a newspaper of general circulation. As a result of the omission, petitioners were not able to file their comments on respondent MERALCO's amended application for the increase of its generation charge. Invoking the Court's pronouncements in Freedom from Debt Coalition v. ERC and MERALCO,[16] petitioners conclude that failure to comply with the publication requirement renders the June 2, 2004 ERC Order null and void.

FREEDOM FROM DEBT COALITION v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION