GR 134437; (January, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 134437 . January 31, 2000
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION and ILIGAN LIGHT AND POWER, INC., respondents.
FACTS
National Steel Corporation (NSC), a steel manufacturer in Iligan City, directly sources its electric power from the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR). NAPOCOR filed an application with the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) for authority to implement a new power rate structure in the Mindanao Grid, proposing a minimal 2% rate differential between utilities (like Iligan Light and Power, Inc. or ILIGAN) and non-utilities (direct customers like NSC). Oppositors sought a 12% differential to protect utilities. The ERB, after proceedings, issued a decision approving a new rate structure that effectively created a wider differential, resulting in rate increases for non-utilities like NSC and decreases for most utilities.
While motions for reconsideration filed by the Association of Mindanao Industries (which included NSC) and NAPOCOR were still pending, the ERB issued orders directing NAPOCOR to implement the new rates. NSC filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, with an application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, challenging the ERB’s orders. The appellate court denied the injunctive relief and subsequently dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing NSC’s petition for certiorari, which assailed the ERB’s orders implementing the new power rate structure despite pending motions for reconsideration.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the ERB acted within its statutory jurisdiction under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6395 , as amended, to fix and prescribe power rates for NAPOCOR’s customers. The assailed orders pertained to rate-fixing, a quasi-legislative function, and not to a controversy over the right to distribute power. The Court emphasized that the new rate structure, while encouraging non-utilities to source power from local utilities by creating a price differential, did not compel NSC to disconnect from NAPOCOR. NSC remained free to choose its power source, albeit at a higher cost.
Furthermore, the Court held that certiorari was an improper remedy. The special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 is available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The appropriate recourse for NSC was a timely appeal from the final ERB decision on the merits, not a premature challenge to interlocutory implementation orders via certiorari. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the ERB in issuing the implementation orders.