Business World Online
Posted on July 31, 2011 10:43:12 PM
Posted on July 31, 2011 10:43:12 PM
PETITION OF consumer groups against a power rate increase implemented by Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) last year has been dismissed by the Supreme Court (SC) for failure to seek redress in a proper forum.
In a decision promulgated July 6, the high court’s second division dismissed the petition filed by the National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc. (Nasecore), Federation of Village Associates and Federation of Las Piñas Village on technical grounds, highlighted by their failure to contest the decision before the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC).
The case stemmed from the ERC’s approval on Dec. 19, 2009 of Meralco’s application to raise the distribution rate. This allowed Meralco to charge an additional P0.269 per kilowatt-hour (kWh)corresponding to P1.4917/kWh from P1.2227/kWh.
Nasecore and the other groups, which failed to attend ERC hearings on Meralco’s petition, went straight to the high court in January 2010 and sought a temporary restraining order on the regulator’s decision, citing additional burden on consumers.
Petitioners also claimed that the ERC violated due process in its proceedings in favor of Meralco after their request for additional evidence was not heeded.
The high court, however, said the petitioners failed to exhaust all remedies before haling the case to court.
“The general statements used by petitioners to excuse their direct recourse to this court are not the concrete, compelling, and valid reasons required by jurisprudence to justify their failure to comply with the mandated procedural requirements. In addition to this, the urgency of the resolution of matters raised by petitioners is negated by the fact that rates approved by the ERC, in the exercise of its rate-fixing powers, are in a sense, inherently only provisional,” the decision read.
Further, the court said that the issue cited by the petition has been superseded by the ERC’s order on March 10, 2010 that upheld the P0.269/kWh increase but excluding the rate distortions proposed by Meralco. The order was issued after a third party appealed the December 2009 decision before the ERC.
On the violation of right to due process, the court said that the petitioners themselves failed to appear regularly in hearings scheduled by ERC on the issue.
“It must not be overlooked that prior to the issuance of the assailed decision, petitioners were given several opportunities to attend the hearings and to present all their pleadings and evidence... Petitioners voluntarily failed to appear in most of those hearings,” the decision read.
Finally, the court cautioned the ERC in issuing decision despite petitioners’ pending request for additional evidence.
“Even though the ERC, as an administrative agency, is not bound by the rigidity of certain procedural requirements, it is still bound by law and practice to observe the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in justiciable cases presented before it,” the court said. -- NRM
The case stemmed from the ERC’s approval on Dec. 19, 2009 of Meralco’s application to raise the distribution rate. This allowed Meralco to charge an additional P0.269 per kilowatt-hour (kWh)corresponding to P1.4917/kWh from P1.2227/kWh.
Nasecore and the other groups, which failed to attend ERC hearings on Meralco’s petition, went straight to the high court in January 2010 and sought a temporary restraining order on the regulator’s decision, citing additional burden on consumers.
Petitioners also claimed that the ERC violated due process in its proceedings in favor of Meralco after their request for additional evidence was not heeded.
The high court, however, said the petitioners failed to exhaust all remedies before haling the case to court.
“The general statements used by petitioners to excuse their direct recourse to this court are not the concrete, compelling, and valid reasons required by jurisprudence to justify their failure to comply with the mandated procedural requirements. In addition to this, the urgency of the resolution of matters raised by petitioners is negated by the fact that rates approved by the ERC, in the exercise of its rate-fixing powers, are in a sense, inherently only provisional,” the decision read.
Further, the court said that the issue cited by the petition has been superseded by the ERC’s order on March 10, 2010 that upheld the P0.269/kWh increase but excluding the rate distortions proposed by Meralco. The order was issued after a third party appealed the December 2009 decision before the ERC.
On the violation of right to due process, the court said that the petitioners themselves failed to appear regularly in hearings scheduled by ERC on the issue.
“It must not be overlooked that prior to the issuance of the assailed decision, petitioners were given several opportunities to attend the hearings and to present all their pleadings and evidence... Petitioners voluntarily failed to appear in most of those hearings,” the decision read.
Finally, the court cautioned the ERC in issuing decision despite petitioners’ pending request for additional evidence.
“Even though the ERC, as an administrative agency, is not bound by the rigidity of certain procedural requirements, it is still bound by law and practice to observe the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in justiciable cases presented before it,” the court said. -- NRM
No comments:
Post a Comment