Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > May 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-78605 May 5, 1988 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-78605. May 5, 1988.]

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND CAGAYAN ELECTRIC POWER AND LIGHT CO., INC., Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; PUBLIC UTILITIES; NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION; STATUTORY EMPOWERED TO DIRECTLY SERVICE ALL BOI-REGISTERED. — It is immaterial whether the direct connection is merely an improvement or an increase in existing voltage, as alleged by petitioner, or a totally new and separate electric service as claimed by private Respondent. The law on the matter is clear.

2. ID.; ID.; FRANCHISE HOLDER; MUST BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE GRANT OF DIRECT CONNECTION WITH NPC. — It is only after a hearing (or an opportunity for such a hearing) where it is established that the affected private franchise holder is incapable or unwilling to match the reliability and rates of NPC that a direct connection with NPC may be granted.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


In this petition for review on certiorari of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, dated 20 April 1987, in CA-G.R. SP-No. 06744, petitioner prays for the reversal of said decision and that "herein petitioner be declared to have a lawful right to provide the Philippine Packing Corporation the improved/increased power supply from 34.5 KV to 69 KV."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner National Power Corporation (NPC, for short) is a government-owned and controlled corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of RA No. 6395, enacted on 10 September 1971, as amended by PD 395, issued on 26 February 1974. Private respondent Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc. (CEPALCO, for short) is a private corporation organized under RA No. 3247, which took effect on 17 June 1961, as amended by RA Nos. 3570 and 6020 which took effect on 21 June 1963 and 4 August 1969, respectively. Under its legislative franchise, private respondent CEPALCO was granted the right, privilege and authority to construct, maintain and operate an electric and power system within the municipalities of Tagoloan, Opol, Villanueva and Jasaan, all in the province of Misamis Oriental and in the city of Cagayan de Oro and its suburbs.

Petitioner NPC alleges that, as early as 1958, it has provided power supply, thru a direct power connection, to the BOI-registered Philippine Packing Corporation (PPC, for short) cannery at Bugo, Cagayan de Oro City at 34.5 KV level; that sometime in February 1984, PPC, because of its increased power needs, began constructing a 69 KV Transmission Line for its additional power requirement and that when private respondent CEPALCO learned about it, the latter filed a petition against petitioner and PPC for Prohibition, Mandamus, and Injunction with Preliminary Injunction before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch XCIC. 2

As prayed for, the trial court issued an ex-parte order enjoining the petitioner from connecting or causing the direct connection of electric service and supply of electric power, at 69 KV level, from NPC’s substation to PPC’s cannery in Bugo, Cagayan de Oro City.

On 27 April 1984, the day of the trial, the petition against PPC was dismissed in open court. On 30 April 1984, the trial court issued an order granting CEPALCO’s prayer for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against NPC.

On 31 May 1984, petitioner NPC filed with this Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, assailing the order of the trial court dated 30 April 1984. In a resolution dated 26 July 1985, this Court referred the NPC petition before it to the Court of Appeals which, in due course, dismissed the petition in its decision dated 20 April 1987. On 21 May 1987, the Court of Appeals also denied NPC’s motion for reconsideration of its decision. Hence, the present appeal.

Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the ruling of this Court in "National Power Corporation v. Canares" 3 applies to the instant case.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The Court of Appeals, in its assailed decision, quoted from this Court’s decision in the Canares case, thus —

"Furthermore, we find nothing in the provisions of P.D. No. 395 (amending P.D. No. 380) which expressly or impliedly allowed or sanctioned the sale in bulk by the NPC of energy direct to BOI-registered enterprises even if it would be violative of the rights of existing franchise holders. In National Power Corp. v. Jacinto, (G.R. No. 67143, prom. January 31, 1985 by this Court’s Second Division, 134 SCRA 431) this Court had occasion to stress the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Presidential Decree No. 380, as amended, PDC Resolution No. 77-01-02 and NPC’s own operational guidelines for the implementation of the BOI-NPC Memorandum of Understanding on direct connection establish the state policy that NPC is statutorily empowered to directly service all the requirements of a BOI-registered enterprise provided that, first, any affected private franchise holder is afforded an opportunity to be heard on the application therefor, and second, from such a hearing, it is established that said private franchise holder is incapable or unwilling to match the reliability and rates of NPC for directly serving the latter. But even without the aforementioned statutory or administrative bases, still said franchise operators’ right to due process or priority to be heard on such direct contracts cannot be denied. Like certificates of public conveyance, legislative or municipal franchises for the operation of a public utility are properties (Raymundo v. Luneta Motor Co., 58 Phil. 889) and therefore guaranteed the due process protection of the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied) (National Power Corporation v. Canares, 140 SCRA 329, 334-336) 4

According to petitioner, the Canares case is not applicable in the instant case, because —

. . . "In the Canares Case, the franchise holder (VECO) has long (1978) been supplying power to the customer (APOCEMCO) and it was only after the franchise holder failed to provide the customer, with continuous and adequate supply of power did the customer apply for direct connection with NPC. In other words, before the application for direct connection was made by APOCEMCO, the only existing power connection was between NPC and VECO and between VECO and APOCEMCO. The application, therefore, for direct connection from NPC to APOCEMCO is clearly for a new line connection under a new power supply contract.

In the instant case, upon the other hand, the herein petitioner, as early as 1958, or even before CEPALCO was granted its franchise in 1961, was already providing power supply directly to power customer Philippine Packing Corporation (PPC) under an existing power contract at 34.5 KV level. Accordingly, if NPC and as requested by PPC, now improves or increases the power supply to PPC to 69 KV level, it is respectfully submitted that there is no violation of CEPALCO’s franchise as such improvement/increase in voltage to 69 KV level is in accordance with the existing power contract." 5

On the other hand, private respondent CEPALCO maintains that the direct connection of power supply, subject matter of the instant petition, is for a totally new and separate electric service, just as in the Canares and Jacinto cases, and not for a mere improvement or increase in voltage. In other words, the power line connection involved is a totally new line, separate and distinct from the existing 34.5 KV line through which petitioner heretofore supplied power to PPC. 6

We rule against the petitioner.

No error was committed by the Court of Appeals in rendering the questioned decision. The principles enunciated by this Court in the Canares case are aptly applicable in the present case. It is immaterial whether the direct connection is merely an improvement or an increase in existing voltage, as alleged by petitioner, or a totally new and separate electric service as claimed by private Respondent. The law on the matter is clear, PD 40 promulgated on 7 November 1972 expressly provides that the generation of electric power shall be undertaken solely by the NPC. However, Section 3 of the same decree also provides that the distribution of electric power shall be undertaken by cooperatives, private utilities (such as the CEPALCO), local governments and other entities duly authorized, subject to state regulation. The pertinent provisions of the aforecited decree read:chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

"1. The attainment of total electrification on an area coverage basis, which is a declared policy of the State, shall be effected primarily through:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) The setting up of island grids with central/linked-up generation facilities.

b) The setting up of cooperatives for distribution of power.

2. The setting up of transmission line grids and the construction of associated generation facilities in Luzon, Mindanao and major islands of the country, including the Visayas, shall be the responsibility of the National Power Corporation (NPC) as the authorized implementing agency of the State.

a) Plant additions necessary to meet the increase in power of the area embraced by any grid set up by the NPC shall be constructed and owned by the NPC.

b) In areas not embraced by the NPC grid, the State shall permit cooperatives, private utilities and local governments to own and operate isolated grids and generation facilities, subject to State regulation.

3. he distribution of electric power generated by the NPC shall be undertaken by:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) Cooperatives

b) Private utilities

c) Local governments

d) Other entities duly authorized subject to state regulation."cralaw virtua1aw library

Likewise, the defunct Power Development Council promulgated PDC Resolution No. 77-01-02 on 28 January 1977 to implement PD No. 395, providing among others:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1) At any given service area, priority should be given to the authorized cooperative or franchise holder in the right to supply the power requirement of existing or prospective industrial enterprises (whether BOI-registered or not) that are located or plan to locate within the franchise area or coop service area as shall be determined by the Board of Power of National Electrification Administration whichever the case may be."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is only after a hearing (or an opportunity for such a hearing) where it is established that the affected private franchise holder is incapable or unwilling to match the reliability and rates of NPC that a direct connection with NPC may be granted. 7 This situation does not exist in the case at bar.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. With costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Yap, (C.J.), Melencio-Herrera, Paras and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Justice Alfredo Marigomen; Justices Santiago M. Kapunan and Reynato S. Puno, concurring.

2. Rollo, pp. 4-5.

3. 140 SCRA 329, 334-336.

4. Decision of Court of Appeals, pp. 6-7.

5. Rollo, pp. 6-7.

6. Rollo, pp. 23-24.

7. National Power Corporation v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 6143, January 31, 1985, 134 SCRA 431.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-47717 May 2, 1988 - IGNACIO PASCUA, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF SEGUNDO SIMEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76353 May 2, 1988 - SOPHIA ALCUAZ, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43446 May 3, 1988 - FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORPORATION v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-39272 May 4, 1988 - EUGENIA SALAMAT VDA. DE MEDINA v. FERNANDO A. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66183 May 4, 1988 - RICARDO O. MONTINOLA, JR. v. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67451 May 4, 1988 - REALTY SALES ENTERPRISE, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74410 May 4, 1988 - PABLO MAYOR v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53984 May 5, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO V. ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. L-70987 May 5, 1988 - GREGORIO Y. LIMPIN, JR., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78605 May 5, 1988 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53907 May 6, 1988 - MODERN FISHING GEAR LABOR UNION v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-57719-21 May 6, 1988 - WILFREDO DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76595 May 6, 1988 - PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-254-MTJ and 88-1-2807-MCTC May 9, 1988 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RICARDO M. MAGTIBAY

  • G.R. No. L-30964 May 9, 1988 - SY CHIE JUNK SHOP, ET AL. v. FOITAF, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43825 May 9, 1988 - CONTINENTAL MARBLE CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46303 May 9, 1988 - VICENTE S. UMALI v. JORGE COQUIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47968 May 9, 1989

    LINA MONTILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48064 May 9, 1988 - ANTHONY POWERS, ET AL. v. DONALD I. MARSHALL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49893 May 9, 1988 - DANIEL C. ASPACIO v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51278 May 9, 1988 - HEIRS OF RAMON PIZARRO, SR. v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54090 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABRAHAM P. SERANILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56505 May 9, 1988 - MAXIMO PLENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56923 May 9, 1988 - RAMON J. ALEGRE v. MANUEL T. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57061 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANGUIGIN MACATANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57280 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH IV, QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68940 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO ABAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77227 May 9, 1988 - COMMANDER REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78604 May 9, 1988 - BATAAN SHIPYARD and ENGINEERING CO., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81190 May 9, 1988 - MATIAS B. AZNAR III, ET AL. v. JUANITO A. BERNAD, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-6-RTJ May 11, 1988 - PELAGIO SICAT v. FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38426 May 11, 1988 - PEDRO DE VILLA v. ISMAEL MATHAY, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-48848 May 11, 1988 - FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48889 May 11, 1989

    DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • G.R. No. L-65680 May 11, 1988 - JOSE B. SARMIENTO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L79644 May 11, 1988 - LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53873 May 13, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO C. LAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47379 May 16, 1988 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3153 May 17, 1988 - JUANITO L. HAW TAY v. EDUARDO SINGAYAO

  • G.R. No. L-58652 May 20, 1988 - ALFREDO B. RODILLAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50242 May 21, 1988 - E. RAZON, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53966 May 21, 1988 - IN RE: JOSE B. YUSAY, ET AL. v. TERESITA Y. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-60487 May 21, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-72069 & L-72070 May 21, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77465 May 21, 1988 - UY TONG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78343 May 21, 1988 - HEIRS OF RICARDO OLIVAS v. FLORENTINO A. FLOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37409 May 23, 1988 - NICOLAS VALISNO v. FELIPE ADRIANO

  • G.R. No. L-47414 May 23, 1988 - ELIODORO T. ISCALA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71863 May 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO POLICARPIO KHAN

  • G.R. No. L-73491 May 23, 1988 - CONCEPCION B. TUPUE v. JOSE URGEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74907 May 23, 1988 - PEDRO S. LACSA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76258 May 23, 1988 - JUANITO S. AMANDY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79010 May 23, 1988 - GENEROSO CORTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30751 May 24, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GENERAL ACCEPTANCE AND FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38570 May 24, 1988 - DOMINGO PADUA v. VICENTE ERICTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57145 May 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN ATUTUBO

  • G.R. No. L-66575 May 24, 1988 - ADRIANO MANECLANG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71909 May 24, 1988 - JANE CUA, ET AL. v. CARMEN LECAROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80066 May 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMIANO ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36007 May 25, 1988 - FERNANDO GALLARDO v. JUAN BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. L-61093 May 25, 1988 - ELIGIO P. MALLARI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65483 May 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVINO T. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 74451 May 25, 1988 - EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77859 May 25, 1988 - CENTURY TEXTILE MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-64349 May 27, 1988 - CARLOS CARPIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-46188 May 28, 1988 - HELENA ALMAZAR v. PEDRO D. CENZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46556 May 28, 1988 - NAPOLEON O. CARIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51101 May 28, 1988 - RUFINO NAZARETH, ET AL. v. RENATO S. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53650 May 28, 1988 - VIRGINIA M. RAMOS v. ABDUL-WAHID A. BIDIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56362 May 28, 1988 - TOMASITA AQUINO v. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56429 May 28, 1988 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. FIDEL PURISIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58997 May 28, 1988 - MARCELINO TIBURCIO v. JOSE P. CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60937 May 28, 1988 - WALTER ASCONA LEE, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61223 May 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO L. MERCADO

  • G.R. No. L-61464 May 28, 1988 - BA FINANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66884 May 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE TEMBLOR

  • G.R. No. 77047 May 28, 1988 - JOAQUINA R-INFANTE DE ARANZ, ET AL. v. NICOLAS GALING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38303 May 30, 1988 - HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION v. RALPH PAULI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43866 May 30, 1988 - PETRONIO COLLADO, ET AL. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48757 May 30, 1988 - MAURO GANZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-67158, 67159, 67160, 67161, & 67162 May 30, 1988 - CLLC E.G. GOCHANGCO WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24842 May 31, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO CARDENAS

  • G.R. No. L-36480 May 31, 1988 - ANDREW PALERMO v. PYRAMID INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-36773 May 31, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54290 May 31, 1988 - DON PEPE HENSON ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. IRINEO PANGILINAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57650 May 31, 1988 - CATALINO Y. TINGA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-59801 May 31, 1988 - LEONOR P. FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67948 May 31, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON MONTEALEGRE

  • G.R. No. 78775 May 31, 1988 - JOSE UNCHUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80774 May 31, 1988 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81805 May 31, 1988 - VAR-ORIENT SHIPPING CO., INC., ET AL. v. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82330 May 31, 1988 - DIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CLEMENTE M. SORIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82568 May 31, 1988 - ALFREDO R.A. BENGZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.