THIRD DIVISION.
.
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES,REPRESENTED
BY
ENERGY
REGULATORY BOARD,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
141314
April 9, 2003
-versus-
MANILA ELECTRIC
COMPANY,
Respondent.
LAWYERS
AGAINST
MONOPOLY AND POVERTY (LAMP)CONSISTING OF
CEFERINO
PADUA, CHAIRMAN, G. FULTON ACOSTA,GALILEO BRION,
ANATALIA
BUENAVENTURA, PEDRO CASTILLO,NAPOLEON CORONADO,
ROMEO ECHAUZ, FERNANDO GAITE,ALFREDO DE GUZMAN,
ROGELIO KARAGDAG, JR., MA. LUZ ARZAGA-MENDOZA,ANSBERTO PAREDES,
AQUILINO PIMENTEL III, MARIO REYES, EMMANUELSANTOS,RUDEGELIO TACORDA,
MEMBERS, AND ROLANDO ARZAGA, SECRETARY-GENERAL,JUSTICEABRAHAM
SARMIENTO, SENATOR AQUILINO PIMENTEL, JR.AND COMMISSIONER
BARTOLOME FERNANDEZ, JR., BOARD OF CONSULTANTS,AND LAWYER GENARO
LUALHATI,
Petitioners, |
G.R.
No.
141369
April 9, 2003
-versus-
MANILA ELECTRIC
COMPANY
(MERALCO),
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O
N
PUNO,
J.:
The business and operations
of a public utility are imbued with public interest. In a very real
sense,
a public utility is engaged in public service - providing basic
commodities
and services indispensable to the interest of the general public. For
this
reason, a public utility submits to the regulation of government
authorities
and surrenders certain business prerogatives, including the amount of
rates
that may be charged by it. It is the imperative duty of the State
to interpose its protective power whenever too much profits become the
priority of public utilities.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For resolution is the
Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Manila Electric Company
(MERALCO) on December 5, 2002 from the decision of this Court dated
November
15, 2002 reducing MERALCO’s rate adjustment in the amount of P0.017 per
kilowatthour (kwh) for its billing cycles beginning 1994 and further
directing
MERALCO to credit the excess average amount of P0.167 per kwh to its
customers
starting with MERALCO’s billing cycles beginning February 1994.[1]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
First, we leapfrog
through the facts. On December 23, 1993, MERALCO filed with the Energy
Regulatory Board (ERB) an application for revised rates, with an
average
increase of P0.21 per kwh in its distribution charge. On January 28,
1994
the ERB granted a provisional increase of P0.184 per kwh subject to the
condition that in the event the ERB determines that MERALCO is entitled
to a lesser increase in rates, all excess amounts collected by MERALCO
shall be refunded to its customers or credited in their favor. The
Commission
on Audit (COA) conducted an examination of the books of accounts and
records
of MERALCO and thereafter recommended, among others, that: (1) income
taxes
paid by MERALCO should not be included as part of MERALCO’s operating
expenses
and (2) the "net average investment method" or the "number of months
use
method" should be applied in determining the proportionate value of the
properties used by MERALCO during the test year.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In its decision dated
February 16, 1998, the ERB adopted the recommendations of the COA and
authorized
MERALCO to adopt a rate adjustment of P0.017 per kilowatthour (kwh) for
its billing cycles beginning 1994. The ERB further directed MERALCO to
credit the excess average amount of P0.167 per kwh to its customers
starting
with MERALCO’s billing cycles beginning February 1994. The said ruling
of the ERB was affirmed by this Court in its decision dated November
15,
2002.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In its Motion for
Reconsideration,
respondent MERALCO contends that: (1) the deduction of income tax from
revenues allowed for rate determination of public utilities is part of
its constitutional right to property; (2) it correctly used the
"average
investment method" or the "simple average" in computing the value of
its
properties entitled to a return instead of the "net average investment
method" or the "number of months use method"; and (3) the decision of
the
ERB ordering the refund of P0.167 per kwh to its customers should not
be
given retroactive effect.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Republic of the
Philippines through the ERB, now Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC),
represented
by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Comment on March 7,
2003.
Surprisingly, in its Comment, the ERC proffered a divergent view from
the
Office of the Solicitor General. The ERC submits that income taxes are
not operating expenses but are reasonable costs that may be recoverable
from the consuming public. While the ERC admits that "there is still no
categorical determination on whether income tax should indeed be
deducted
from revenues of a public utility," it agrees with MERALCO that to
disallow
public utilities from recovering its income tax payments will
effectively
lower the return on rate base enjoyed by a public utility to 8%. The
ERC,
however, agrees with this Court’s ruling that the use of the "net
average
investment method" or the "number of months use method" is not
unreasonable.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Office of the Solicitor
General, under its solemn duty to protect the interests of the people,
defended the thesis that income tax payments by a public utility should
not be recovered as costs from the consuming public. It contended
that:
(1) the foreign jurisprudence cited by MERALCO in support of its
position
is not applicable in this jurisdiction; (2) MERALCO was given a fair
rate
of return; (3) the COA and the ERB followed the National Accounting and
Auditing Manual which expressly disallows the treatment of income tax
as
operating expense; (4) Executive Order No. 72 does not grant electric
utilities
the privilege of treating income tax as operating expense; (5) the COA
and the ERB have been consistent in not allowing income tax as part of
operating expenses; (6) ERB decisions allowing the application of a tax
recovery clause are inapropos; (7) allowing MERALCO to treat income tax
as an operating expense would set a dangerous precedent; (8) assuming
that
the disallowance of income tax as operating expense would discourage
foreign
investors and lenders, the government is not precluded from enacting
laws
and instituting measures to lure them back; and (9) the findings and
conclusions
of the ERB carry great weight and should be binding on the courts in
the
absence of grave abuse of discretion. The Solicitor General agrees with
the ERC that the "net average investment method" is a reasonable method
for property valuation. Finally, the Solicitor General argues that the
ERB decision may be applied retroactively and the use of a test period
to determine the rate base and allowable rates to be collected by a
public
utility is an accepted practice.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We shall discuss the
main issues in seriatim.
I
MERALCO argues that
deduction of all kinds of taxes, including income tax, from the gross
revenues
of a public utility is firmly entrenched in American jurisprudence. It
contends that the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 146) was
patterned
after Act 2306 of the Philippine Commission, which, in turn, was
borrowed
from American state public utility laws such as the New Jersey Public
Utility
Act. Hence, it maintains that American jurisprudence on the inclusion
of
income taxes as a lawful charge to operating expenses should be
controlling.
It cites the rule on statutory construction that a statute adopted from
a foreign country will be presumed to be adopted with the construction
placed upon it by the courts of that country before its adoption.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We are not persuaded.
American decisions and authorities are not per se controlling in this
jurisdiction.
At best, they are persuasive for no court holds a patent on correct
decisions.
Our laws must be construed in accordance with the intention of our own
lawmakers and such intent may be deduced from the language of each law
and the context of other local legislation related thereto. More
importantly,
they must be construed to serve our own public interest which is the
be-all
and the end-all of all our laws. And it need not be stressed that
our public interest is distinct and different from others.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rate regulation calls
for a careful consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances
material to each application for an upward rate revision. Rate
regulators
should strain to strike a balance between the clashing interests of the
public utility and the consuming public and the balance must assure a
reasonable
rate of return to public utilities without being unreasonable to the
consuming
public. What is reasonable or unreasonable depends on a calculus
of changing circumstances that ebb and flow with time. Yesterday
cannot govern today, no more than today can determine tomorrow.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Prescinding from these
premises, we reject MERALCO’s insistence that the non-inclusion of
income
tax payments as a legitimate operating expense will deny public
utilities
a fair return of their investment. This stubborn stance is belied
by the report submitted by the COA on the audit conducted on MERALCO’s
books of accounts and the findings of the ERB.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon the instructions
of the ERB, the COA conducted an audit of the operations of MERALCO
covering
the period from February 1, 1994 to January 31, 1995, or the period
immediately
after the implementation of the provisional rate increase.[7]
Hence, amounts culled by the COA from its examination of the books of
MERALCO
already included the provisional rate increase of P0.184 granted by the
ERB.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
From the figures submitted
by the COA, the ERB was able to determine that MERALCO derived excess
revenue
during the test year in the amount of P2,448,378,000.[8]
This means that during the test year, and after the rates were
increased
by P0.184, MERALCO earned P2,448,378,000 or 8.15% more than the amount
it should have earned at a 12% rate of return on rate base.
Accordingly,
based on this amount of excess revenue, the ERB determined that the
provisional
rate granted by it to MERALCO was P0.167 per kwh more than the amount
MERALCO
ought to charge its customers to obtain the prescribed 12% rate of
return
on rate base. Thus, the ERB correspondingly lowered the
provisional
increase by P0.167 per kwh and ordered MERALCO to increase its rates at
a reduced amount of P0.017 per kwh, computed as follows:[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At appraised value
Total Invested Capital
Entitled
P
30,059,614,000[10]
to Return
12% return
thereon
P 3,607,154,000
Add: Total Operating
expenses P
38,260,420,000[11]
for Rate Determination
Purposes
Computed
Revenue
P 41,867,573,000
Actual
Revenue
P 44,315,951,000
Excess
Revenue
P 2,448,378,000
Percent of Excess Revenue
to
8.15%
Invested Capital
Authorized Rate of
Return
12.00%
Actual Rate of
Return
20.15%
Total kwh
sold
14,640,094,000
Ratio of Excess Revenue
to
Total kwh
Sold
P 0.167
In fact, even if MERALCO’s
income tax liability would be included as an operating expense, MERALCO
would still enjoy excess revenue of P312,738,000.00 or 1.04% above the
authorized rate of return of 12%. Based on its audit, the COA
determined
that the provision for income tax liability of MERALCO amounted to
P2,135,639,000.00.[12]
Thus, even if such amount of income tax liability would be included as
operating expense, the amount of excess revenue earned by MERALCO
during
the test year would be more than sufficient to cover the additional
income
tax expense. Thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At appraised value
Total Invested Capital
Entitled
P 30,059,614,000
to Return
12% return
thereon
P 3,607,154,000
Add: Total Operating
expenses
P
40,396,059,000[13]
for Rate Determination
Purposes
Computed
Revenue
P 44,003,213,000
Actual
Revenue
P 44,315,951,000
Excess
Revenue
P 312,738,000
Percent of Excess Revenue
to Invested
Capital
1.04%
Authorized Rate of
Return
12.00%
Actual Rate of
Return
13.04%
It is crystal clear,
therefore, that even if income tax is to be included as an operating
expense
and hence, recoverable from the consuming public, MERALCO would still
enjoy
a rate of return that is above the authorized rate of 12%. Public
utilities cannot be allowed to overcharge at the expense of the public
and worse, they cannot complain that they are not overcharging enough.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Be that as it may, MERALCO
contends that considering income tax payments of public utilities
constitute
one-third of their net income, public utilities will effectively get,
not
the 12% rate of return on rate base allowed them, but only about 8%.[14]
Again, we are not persuaded.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The foregoing argument
assumes that the 12% return allowed to public utilities is equivalent
to
its taxable income which will be subject to income tax. The 12%
rate
of return is computed only for the purpose of fixing the allowable
rates
to be charged by a public utility and is in no way determinative of the
income subject to income tax of the public utility. The
computation
of a corporation’s income tax liability is an altogether different
matter,
with the corporation’s taxable income derived by taking into account
the
corporation’s gross revenues less allowable deductions.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
MERALCO also contends
that even the successor of the ERB or the ERC created under the
Electric
Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA)[17]
"adheres to the principle that income tax is part of operating expense."[18]
To bolster its argument, MERALCO cites Article 36 of the EPIRA which
charges
the ERC with the responsibility of unbundling the rates of the National
Power Corporation (NPC) and each distribution utility coming within the
coverage of the law.[19]
MERALCO alleges that pursuant to said provision, the ERC issued a set
of
Uniform Rate Filing Requirements (UFR) containing guidelines to be
followed
with respect to rate unbundling applications to be filed. MERALCO
asserts
that under the UFR, the enumeration of the expenses which are to be
recovered
through the rates, and which are to be separated or allocated for the
purpose
of unbundling of these rates include income tax expenses.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Section 36 of
the EPIRA, the NPC and every distribution facility covered by the law
is
mandated to unbundle, segregate or itemize its rates according to the
various
sectors of the electric power industry identified in the law, namely:
generation,
transmission, distribution and supply.[20]
The law further directs the ERC to regulate and facilitate the
unbundling
of rates prescribed by Section 36. Thus, on October 30, 2001, the
ERC issued guidelines prescribing the uniform rate filing requirements
to be followed by distribution facilities for the purposes of
unbundling
rates.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A proper appreciation
of the UFR shows that it simply specifies a uniform accounting system
to
be complied with by a distribution facility when filing an application
for revised rates under the EPIRA. As the EPIRA requires the unbundling
or segregation of rates according to the different sectors of the
electric
power industry, the UFR seeks to facilitate this process by properly
identifying
the accounts or information required for proper evaluation by the ERB.
Thus, the introductory statements of the UFR provide:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
These uniform rate filing
requirements are intended to promote consistency and completeness in
the
rate filings required by Republic Act No. 9136 (RA 9136), Section
36.
To that end, the filing requirements only specify minimum form and
content.
A rate application in all its aspects continues to be subject to
subsequent
Commission review and deliberation.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the onset, it is
clear that the UFR does not seek to determine which accounting method
will
be used by the ERC for determination of rate base or the items of
expenses
that may be recovered by a public utility from its customers. The UFR
only
seeks to prescribe a uniform system or format to standardize or
facilitate
the process of unbundling of rates mandated by the EPIRA. At
best,
the UFR prescribes the set of raw data or figures to be disclosed by a
distribution facility that the ERC will need to determine the
authorized
rates that a distribution facility may charge. The UFR does not, in any
way, determine the manner by which the set of data or figures indicated
in the rate application will be evaluated by the ERC for rate
determination
purposes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
MERALCO also challenges
the use of the "net average investment method" or the "number of months
use method" on the ground that MERALCO and the Public Service
Commission
(PSC) have been consistently applying the "average investment method"
or
"simple average", which it alleged was also affirmed by this Court in
the
case of MERALCO v. PSC[23]
and Republic v. Medina.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is true that in MERALCO
v. PSC,[25]
the issue of the proper valuation method to be used in determining the
value of MERALCO’s utility plants for rate fixing purposes was brought
to fore. In the said case, MERALCO applied the "average
investment
method" or "simple average" by obtaining the average value of the
utility
plants, using its values at the beginning and at the end of the test
year.
In contrast, the General Auditing Office used the "appraisal method"
which
fixes the value of the utility plants by ascertaining the cost of
production
per kilowatt and multiplying the same by the total capacity of said
plants,
less the corresponding depreciation.[26]
In upholding the "average investment method" used by MERALCO, this
Court
adopted the findings of the PSC for being "by and large, supported by
the
records of the case."[27]
This Court did not make an independent assessment of the validity or
applicability
of the average investment method but simply did not disturb the
findings
of the PSC for being supported by substantial evidence. To
conclude
that the said decision "affirmed" the use of the "average investment
method"
thereby implying that the said method is the only method to be applied
in all instances, is a strained reading of the decision.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In fact, in the case
of Republic v. Medina,[28]
also cited by MERALCO to have affirmed the use of the "average
investment
method", this Court ruled:
The decided weight of
authority, however, is to the effect that property valuation is not to
be solved by formula but depends upon the particular circumstances and
relevant facts affecting each utility as to what constitutes a just
rate
base and what would be a fair return, just to both the utility and the
public.[29]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Further, Mr. Justice
Castro in his concurring opinion in the same case elucidated:
A regulatory commission’s
field of inquiry, however, is not confined to the computation of the
cost
of service or capital nor to a mere prognostication of the future
behavior
of the money and capital markets. It must also balance investor
and
consumer expectations in such a way that broad requirements of public
interest
may be meaningfully realized. It would hence appear in keeping
with
its public duty if a regulatory body is allowed wide discretion in the
choice of methods rationally related to the achievement of this end.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, the rule then
as it is now, is that rate regulating authorities are not hidebound to
use any single formula or combination of formulas for property
valuation
purposes because the rate-making process involves the balancing of
investor
and consumer interests which takes into account various factors that
may
be unique or peculiar to a particular rate revision application.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, this Court finds
no reversible error on the part of the COA and the ERB in adopting the
"net average investment method" or the "number of months use method"
for
property valuation purposes in the cases at bar.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
III
MERALCO also rants against
the retroactive application of the rate adjustment ordered by the ERB
and
affirmed by this Court. In its decision, the ERB, after authorizing
MERALCO
to adopt a rate adjustment in the amount of P0.017 per kwh, directed
MERALCO
to refund or credit to its customers’ future consumption the excess
average
amount of P0.167 per kwh from its billing cycles beginning February 1994[33]
until its billing cycles beginning February 1998.[34]
In the decision appealed from, this Court likewise ordered that the
refund
in the average amount of P0.167 per kwh be made to retroact from
MERALCO’s
billing cycles beginning February 1994.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
MERALCO contends that
the refund cannot be given retroactive effect as the figures determined
by the ERB only apply to the test year or the period subject of the COA
Audit, i.e., February 1, 1994 to January 31, 1995. It reasoned that the
amounts used to determine the proper rates to be charged by MERALCO
would
vary from year to year and thus the computation of the excess average
charge
of P0.167 would hold true only for the test year. Thus, MERALCO argues
that if a refund of P0.167 would be uniformly applied to its billing
cycles
beginning 1994, with respect to periods after January 31, 1995, there
will
be instances wherein its operating revenues would fall below the 12%
authorized
rate of return. MERALCO therefore suggests that the dispositive portion
be modified and order that "the refund applicable to the periods after
January 31, 1995 is to be computed on the basis of the excess
collection
in proportion to the excess over the 12% return."[35]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The purpose of the audit
procedures conducted in a rate application proceeding is to determine
whether
the rate applied for will generate a reasonable return for the public
utility,
which, in accordance with settled laws and jurisprudence, is 12% on
rate
base or the present value of the assets used in the operations of a
public
utility. For audit purposes, however, there is a need to obtain a
sample
set of data-- usually derived from figures within a designated period
of
time-- to determine the amount of returns obtained by a public utility
during such period. In the cases at bar, the COA conducted an audit for
the test year beginning February 1, 1994 and ending January 31, 1995 or
a 12-month period immediately after the order of the ERB granting a
provisional
increase in the amount of P0.184 per kwh was issued. Thus, the
ultimate
issue resolved by the COA when it conducted its audit was whether the
provisional
increase granted by the ERB generated an amount of return well within
the
rates authorized by law. As stated earlier, based on the findings
of the ERB, with the increase of P0.184 per kwh, MERALCO obtained a
rate
of return which was 8.15% more than the authorized rate of return of
12%.[36]
Thus, a refund in the amount of P0.167 was determined and ordered by
ERB.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The essence of the use
of a "test year" for auditing purposes is to obtain a sample or
representative
set of figures to enable the examining authority to arrive at a
conclusion
or finding based on the gathered data. The use of a "test year" does
not
mean that the information and conclusions so derived would only be
correct
for that year and would be incorrect on the succeeding years. The use
of
a "test year" assumes that within a reasonable period after such test
year,
figures used to determine the amount of return would only vary slightly
from the figures culled during the test year such that the impact on
the
utility’s rate of return would not be very significant. Thus, in the
event
that there is a substantial change in circumstances significantly
affecting
the variable amounts that would determine the reasonableness of a
return,
an event which would normally occur after a certain period of time has
elapsed, the public utility may subsequently apply for a rate revision.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the
Solicitor
General that following MERALCO’s reasoning that the figures culled from
a test year would only be relevant during such year, there would be a
need
for public utilities to apply for a rate adjustment every year and
perform
an audit examination on a public utility’s books of accounts every year
as the amount of a utility’s revenue may fall above or below the
authorized
rates at any given year. Needless to say, the trajectory of MERALCO’s
arguments
will lead to an absurdity.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
From the time the order
granting a provisional increase was issued by the ERB, nowhere in the
records
does it appear that the subsequent refund of P0.167 per kwh ordered by
the ERB was ever implemented or executed by MERALCO.[37]
Accordingly, from January 28, 1994 MERALCO imposed on its customers a
charge
that is P0.167 in excess of the proper amount. In fact, any application
for rate adjustment that may have been applied for and/or granted to
MERALCO
during the intervening period would have to be reckoned from rates
increased
by P0.184 per kwh as these were the rates prevailing at the time any
application
for rate adjustment was made by MERALCO.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While we agree that
the amounts used to determine the utility’s rate of return would vary
from
year to year, we are unable to subscribe to the view that the refund
applicable
to the periods after January 31, 1995 should be computed on the basis
of
the excess collection in proportion to the excess over the 12% return.
MERALCO’s contention that the refund for periods after January 31, 1995
should be computed on the basis of revenue of each year in excess of
the
12% authorized rate of return calls for a year-by-year computation of
MERALCO’s
revenues and assets which would be contrary to the essence of an audit
examination of a public utility based on a test year. To grant
MERALCO’s
prayer would, in effect, allow MERALCO the benefit of a year-by-year
adjustment
of rates not normally enjoyed by any other public utility required to
adopt
a subsequent rate modification. Indeed, had the ERB ordered an increase
in the provisional rates it previously granted, said increase in rates
would apply retroactively and would not have varied from year to year,
depending on the variable amounts used to determine the authorized
rates
that may be charged by MERALCO. We find no significant circumstance
prevailing
in the cases at bar that would justify the application of a yearly
adjustment
as requested by MERALCO.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED
WITH
FINALITY.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, G.R. No. 141369, pp. 199-218.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id. at 223-270.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
G.R. No. 141314, pp. 2309-2313.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 2305-2399.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 224-226.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Audit Report SAO No. 95-07; Rollo, G.R. No. 141314, pp. 143-527.
[7]
Rollo, G.R. No. 141314, p. 146. Provisional rate increase was granted
by
the ERB in its Order dated January 28, 1994.
[8]
Id. at 588.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
The "net average investment method" or the "number of months use
method"
was used to determine proportionate value of assets in service.
[11]
Income tax considered as a non-operating expense.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Rollo, G.R. No. 141314, p. 455.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Income tax considered as an operating expense.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Rollo, G.R. No. 141314, p. 1408.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
H. S. De Leon, The Fundamentals of Taxation 83 (1993).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Republic v. Medina, G.R. Nos. 32068, 32083, 32155, 32374, 32402, 32464,
October 4, 1971, 41 SCRA 643, 665.
[17]
Republic Act No. 9136, June 16, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Rollo, G.R. No. 141314, p. 1419.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Section 36. Unbundling of Rates and Functions. Within six (6) months
from
the effectivity of this Act, the NPC shall file with the ERC its
revised
rates. The rates of the NPC shall be unbundled between transmission and
generation rates and the rates shall reflect the respective costs of
providing
each service. Inter-grid and intra-grid cross subsidies for both the
transmission
and generation rates shall be removed in accordance with this Act.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Within
six (6) months from effectivity of this Act, each distribution utility
shall file its revised rates for the approval of the ERC. The
distribution
wheeling charge shall be unbundled from the retail rate and the rates
shall
reflect the respective costs of providing each service. For both the
distribution
retail wheeling and supplier’s charges, inter-class subsidies shall be
removed in accordance with this Act.
Within
six (6) months from the date of submission of the revised rates by NPC
and each distribution facility, the ERC shall notify the entities of
their
approval.
Any
electric power industry participant shall functionally and structurally
unbundle its business activities and rates in accordance with the
sectors
as identified in Section 5 hereof. The ERC shall ensure full compliance
with this provision.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Section 5, EPIRA.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Rollo, G.R. No. 141314, pp. 1312-1330.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Id. at 1316. mphasis supplied.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
G.R. Nos. 24762, 24841, 24854, 24872, November 14, 1966, 18 SCRA 651.
[24]
Supra note 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Supra note 23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Id. at 670.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Id. at 673.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Supra note 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Id. at 662. mphasis supplied.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Id. at 684. mphasis supplied.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Radio Communications of the Philippines, et al. v. National
Telecommunications
Commission, et al., G.R. No. 66683, April 23, 1990, 184 SCRA 517, 524.
[32]
Republic v. Medina, G.R. Nos. 32068, 32083, 32155, 32374, 32402, 32464,
October 4, 1971, 41 SCRA 643, 666.
[33]
Period after the provisional increase of P0.184 was granted by the ERB.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
ERB decision promulgated on February 16, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
Supra note 1 at 266.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
See Supra note 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
On March 3, 1998, the ERB issued an order giving MERALCO a period of 15
days from receipt of the Order to submit the required data indicated in
the ERB’s decision dated February 16, 1998 for the purpose of
implementing
the refund. (See CA Rollo, pp. 1057-1058). While pending appeal with
the
Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals issued a Temporary Restraining
Order
on March 17, 1998 prohibiting the ERB from implementing its decision
dated
February 16, 1998 and its Order dated March 3, 1998. (See CA Rollo, pp.
1064-1065). Further, the Court of Appeals granted MERALCO’s prayer for
the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction in a Resolution dated
May 20, 1998. (See CA Rollo, pp. 1302-1309).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
|