ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 159796.� April 5, 2005]
GEROCHI vs. DEPT. OF ENERGY
EN BANC
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 5 2005.
G.R. No. 159796 (Romeo P. Gerochi, Katulong ng Bayan [KB] and Environmentalist Consumers Network, Inc. (ECN) v. Department of Energy [DOE], Energy Regulatory Commission [ERC], National Power Corporation [NPC], Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Group [PSALM], Strategic Power Utilities Group [SPUG] and Panay Electric Company, Inc. [PECO].)
Under consideration is the Motion to Require Respondents to Answer Interrogatories filed by the petitioners. They seek an order to compel the respondents to answer the written interrogatories served upon the latter, to wit:
1.� How much is the total amount of universal charge for missionary electrification has so far been collected?
2.� How much is the universal charge for environmental charge has so far been collected as of this date since implementation?
3.� Where are the funds presently deposited and who has the custody thereof?
4.� What portion of the collected universal charge has so far been disbursed for any specific purpose or projects and what are the specific purpose or projects to which they were spent?
Petitioner Romeo P. Gerochi, a taxpayer and a consumer of electricity, and Katulong ng Bayan (KB) and Environmentalist Consumers Network, Inc. (ECN), both non-stock, non-profit organizations, filed the instant petition [1] cralaw as an original action to assail the constitutionality of Section 34 of Republic Act No. 9136 and its implementing rules and regulations. Section 34 reads as follows:
SECTION 34. Universal Charge. - Within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act, a universal charge to be determined, fixed and approved by the ERC , shall be imposed on all electricity and end-users for the following purposes:
(a)���� Payment for the stranded debts in excess of the amount assumed by the National Government and stranded contract costs of NPC and as well as qualified stranded contract costs of distribution utilities resulting from the restructuring of the industry;
(b)���� Missionary electrification;
(c)���� The equalization of the taxes and royalties applied to indigenous or renewable sources of energy vis-�-vis imported energy fuels;
(d)���� An environmental charge equivalent to one-fourth of one centavo per kilowatt-hour (P0.0025/kWh), which shall accrue to an environmental fund to be used solely for watershed rehabilitation and management. Said fund shall be managed by NPC under existing arrangements; and
(e)���� A charge to account for all forms of cross-subsidies for a period not exceeding three (3) years.
The universal charge shall be a non-bypassable charge which shall be passed on and collected from all end-users on a monthly basis by the distribution utilities. Collections by the distribution utilities and the TRANSCO in any given month shall be remitted to the PSALM Corp. on or before the fifteenth (15th) of the succeeding month, net of any amount due to the distribution utility. Any end-user or self-generating entity not connected to a distribution utility shall remit its corresponding universal charge directly to the TRANSCO.
The PSALM Corp., as administrator of the fund, shall create a Special Trust Fund which shall be disbursed only for the purpose specified herein in an open and transparent manner. All amount collected for the universal charge shall be distributed to the respective beneficiaries within a reasonable period to be provided by the ERC. (Emphasis supplied)
Rule 18 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of said law provides:
Within one (1) year from the effectivity of the Act, there shall be a Universal Charge to be determined, fixed and approved by the ERC that shall be imposed on all electricity end-users, including self-generation entities.
The petitioners assert that the implementation of the universal charge provided for under the aforementioned provisions "is in all essence and purpose, a tax which is to be collected from all electric end-users and self-generating entities. Since the power to tax is strictly a legislative function, the unlimited delegation of such power to the ERC, an administrative agency, is thus, patently unconstitutional."
Petitioners then pray that "Section 34 and related sections of Rep. Act NO. 9136 should be declared unconstitutional, hence null and void; the universal charge being charged to the consumers be ordered refunded to the consumers; and the respondents be ordered to stop and refrain from implementing, collecting and charging the universal charge." [2] cralaw
On 26 January 2004, respondents DOE, ERC and the NPC filed their joint comment [3] cralaw to the petition.
On 16 February 2004, respondent PSALM likewise filed its comment [4] cralaw to the petition.
On 13 July 2004, the petitioners filed their reply [5] cralaw to the comments of the respondents.
In its Resolution [6] cralaw of 03 August 2004, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition; treat the comment as answer; and require the parties to submit their respective memoranda within thirty (30) days from notice thereof.
Except for PECO, all the parties filed their respective memoranda. [7] cralaw
On 18 January 2004, the petitioners furnished the Court with a copy [8] cralaw of written interrogatories they wished to propound to the respondents, which the Court duly noted in its Resolution [9] cralaw of 15 February 2005.
The Court resolves to deny the petitioners' Motion to Require Respondents to Answer Interrogatories for lack of merit.
Although the field of inquiry that maybe covered by depositions or interrogatories is as broad as when the interrogated party is called as witness to testify orally at trial, the inquiry must only extend to what is relevant and material to the issue subject of the suit as provided for in Section 5 of Rule 25 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, as amended, which reads:
SEC. 5. Scope and use of interrogatories. - Interrogatories may relate to any matters that can be inquired into under section 2 [10] cralaw of Rule 23, ...
In the case at bar, the written interrogatories served by the petitioners on the respondents deal with ancillary matters which, although may be inquired into through proper modes of discovery provided in the Rules, are not directly related to the main issue, i.e., the constitutionality of Section 34 and other related sections of Rep. Act No. 9316. The written interrogatories sent to the respondents are for the purpose of finding out the total amount of universal charge already collected. Undoubtedly, the factual answers to the queries do not in any way help the Court in resolving the questions of whether or not the universal charge provided for by Rep. Act. No. 9136 is a tax and whether or not there is any undue delegation to the ERC by the legislature of such power to tax with respect to the determination and collection of the universal charge. Hence, the written interrogatories are not in order.
Nonetheless, the court admonishes the respondents for ignoring the written interrogatories. The rules on discovery are intended to enable a party to obtain knowledge of material facts within the knowledge of the adverse party. If the party to whom the interrogatories is directed would wish not to answer the questions it should avail of the appropriate steps to resist the request. Under the Rules, [11] cralaw opposition to written interrogatories may be filed. But, instead of opposing the written interrogatories, respondents simply ignored the pleading. Such posture undermined the rules on modes of discovery and may even constitute an affront on the dignity of the Court.
WHEREFORE, the Motion to Require Respondents to Answer Interrogatories filed by the petitioners is DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo p. 3; filed on September 24, 2003.
[2] cralaw Petition, Rollo p. 8.
[3] cralaw Treated by the Court as their joint answer to the complaint.
[4] cralaw Treated by the Court as its answer to the complaint.
[5] cralaw Rollo, p. 102.
[6] cralaw Rollo, p. 108.
[7] cralaw Rollo, pp. 123, 154 and 168.
[8] cralaw Rollo, p. 188.
[9] cralaw Rollo, p. 191.
[10] cralaw SEC. 2. Scope of examination. - Unless otherwise ordered by the court as provided by section 16 or 18 of this Rule, the deponent maybe examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject of the pending action, whether relating to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts.
[11] cralaw Section 3, Rule 25 of the Revised Rules of Court.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
