ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ERB V. COURT OF APPEALS, 305 SCRA 327 (1999)

ERB V. COURT OF APPEALS,

305 SCRA 327 (1999)

 

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

The fine imposed on PAL in CAB Resolution 109 (70) and 132 (70) is that fine or civil penalty contemplated in the relevant provisions of Republic Act 776 and not a fine in the nature of criminal penalty as contemplated in the Revised Penal Code. It is an administrative penalty which administrative officers are empowered to impose without criminal prosecution.

 

FACTS

Normally, electric power generated by the National Power Corporation (NPC) is sold through private utility firms authorized to operate within a franchise area. In the present case, the private respondents bypassed the franchise holder in their area and obtained power directly from the NPC. Petitioner, on the other hand, wants a disconnection of such direct supply. Which agency of the government has jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute-the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) or the Department of Energy (DOE)?

 

ISSUE

Which agency of the government has jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute-the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) or the Department of Energy (DOE)?

 

RULING

The DOE.

Here, This Court held that “the NPC is not the proper authority x x x, not only because the subject matter of the hearing is a matter involving the NPC itself, but also because the law has created the proper administrative body vested with authority to conduct a hearing.” It may be true that this function formerly belonged to the ERB, by virtue of the “Cabinet Policy Reforms in the Energy Sector” embodied in the Cabinet Memorandum of January 23, 1987, and EO 172 issued May 8, 1987. However, pursuant to Section 18 of RA 7638, which was subsequently enacted by Congress on December 9, 1992, the non-rate-fixing jurisdiction, powers and functions of the ERB have been transferred to the Department of Energy. The applications for the NPC’s direct supply or disconnection of power involve essentially the distribution of energy resources, not by any incident the determination of power rates. Consequently, these applications must be resolved by the DOE.








Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147