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] | |||||