This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-06-15 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| This contention of the appellant fails to take into consideration the purpose for which the commission was created and the powers conferred upon it through the Constitution and the laws enacted by the Legislature. [126] (emphases supplied) In the Philippines, interim rate-regulation has been consistently recognized. The statutory history of Philippine electric power regulation discussed earlier shows that public utility regulators have always had statutory authority to grant provisional relief. As early as 1926, in the case of Madrigal y Compania et al. v. Cui, G.R. No. 19829, November 28, 1922, the Court recognized the power of the Public Utility Commission to grant temporary rate increases to ship owners transporting freight and passengers. The power of public utility regulators to grant interim rate increases has also been shown in various regulated industries such as those relating to electric power distribution,[127] petroleum products,[128] telecommunication services,[129] and toll rates.[130] In terms of provisional relief not related to rate-setting, the Court has upheld the power of the public utility regulators to grant temporary permits in favor of ice plant operators,[131] auto-truck operators,[132] and public utility vehicle operations.[133] | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| At any rate, even on the assumption that in the test year involved (February 1, 1994 to January 31, 1995), MERALCO's computed revenue of P 41,867,573,000 or the amount that it is allowed to earn based on a 12% rate of return is its taxable income, after payment of its income tax liability of P2,135,639,000.00, MERALCO would still obtain an 11.38% rate of return or a return that is well within the 12% rate allowed to public utilities.[16] | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We again stress the long established doctrine that findings of administrative or regulatory agencies on matters which are within their technical area of expertise are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence.[31] Rate fixing calls for a technical examination and a specialized review of specific details which the courts are ill-equipped to enter, hence, such matters are primarily entrusted to the administrative or regulating authority.[32] | |||||