G.R. No. 201852 , April 5, 2016.
ROBERTO G. ROSALES, NICANOR M. BRIONES, PONCIANO D. PAYUYO, JOSE R. PING-AY, ISIDRO Q. LICO, AND JOSE TAN RAMIREZ, in their capacity as members of the Board of Directors of NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR CONSUMER EMPOWERMENT OF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES and on behalf of the nine million (9,000,000) member consumers of NEA-Electric Cooperatives nationwide who have contributed the Members’ Contributions for Capital Expenditures (MCC) or Reinvestment Fund for Sustainable Capital Expenditures (RFSC), Petitioners,

vs.
ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC), ASELCO, AKELCO, ALECO, ANTECO, AURELCO, BATELEC I, BATELEC II, BENECO, BILECO, BOHECO I, BOHECO II, FIBECO, BUSECO, CAGELCO I, CAGELCO II, CASURECO I, CASURECO II, CASURECO III, CASURECO IV, CAMELCO, CAPELCO, CEBECO I, CEBECO II, CEBECO III, CENECO, CENPELCO, DORECO, DASURECO, ESAMELCO, FLECO, GUIMELCO, IFELCO, INEC, ISECO, ILECO I, ILECO II, ILECO III, ISELCO I, KAELCO, LUELCO, SORECO I, LANECO, LEYECO I/DORELCO, LEYECO II, LEYECO III, LEYECO IV, LEYECO V, PENELCO, MOELCO I, MOELCO II, MORESCO I, MORESCO II, MOPRECO, NORECO I, NORSAMELCO, NEECO I, NEECO II – Area I, NEECO II – Area II, PELCO I, PELCO II, CANORECO, PRESCO, QUEZELCO I, QUEZELCO II, SAMELCO I, SAMELCO II, SIARELCO, SOCOTECO I, SOCOTECO II, SOLECO, SUKELCO, SURNECO, SURSECO I, SURSECO II, TARELCO I, TARELCO II, VRESCO, ZAMECO I, ZAMECO II, ZAMCELCO, ZANECO, ZAMSURECO I, ZAMSURECO II, BAT ANELCO, LUBELCO, OMECO, ORMECO, MARELCO, TIELCO, ROMELCO, BISELCO, FICELCO, MACELCO, TISELCO, BANELCO, PROSIELCO, CELCO, COTELCO, TAWELCO, SIASELCO, SULECO, BASELCO, CASELCO, LASURECO, MAGELCO, DIELCO, and COTELCO-PALMA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, as members of the Board of Directors of the National Alliance for Consumer Empowerment of Electric Cooperatives (NACEELCO) and on behalf of member-consumers, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the imposition of the Members’ Contribution for Capital Expenditures (MCC), later renamed Reinvestment Fund for Sustainable Capital Expenditures (RFSC), by on-grid Electric Cooperatives (ECs). The imposition was pursuant to the Energy Regulatory Commission’s (ERC) Rules for Setting the Electric Cooperatives’ Wheeling Rates (RSEC-WR), adopted in Resolution No. 20, Series of 2009, and Resolution No. 14, Series of 2011. The RSEC-WR stated that the MCC/RFSC is envisioned to fund the amortization or debt service for the expansion, rehabilitation, or upgrading of the ECs’ electric power system, with collections placed in a separate account and treated as a contribution from member-consumers. If a member-consumer terminates the contract, the contribution is not withdrawn but treated as a Contribution in Aid of Construction (CIAC), or converted into member’s share capital for ECs registered under the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA). Petitioners argued that the mandatory collection of MCC/RFSC, treated as a subsidy or CIAC instead of patronage capital (an equity investment that can be withdrawn), is unconstitutional and violates due process, equal protection, and the constitutional provisions on just compensation and social justice. They also contended it is contrary to Presidential Decree No. 269. Petitioners claimed legal standing as NACEELCO board members, member-consumers who paid MCC/RFSC, and as representatives of constituents. The petition was dismissed.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether petitioners have the legal standing (locus standi) to file the petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. It ruled that only petitioners Jose R. Ping-ay and Jose Tan Ramirez satisfied the requirement of legal standing. Petitioners had no legal standing to file in their capacity as NACEELCO Board members as it was not shown that respondent ECs are members of NACEELCO. They also failed to attach documentary proof regarding their representation of nine million member-consumers. The Court found that the liberal policy on locus standi for matters of transcendental public importance did not apply because the issues raised were not of such paramount public importance as to warrant a relaxation of the rule. The Court noted that the petition involved a complex factual milieu requiring a determination of whether the MCC/RFSC collections were indeed treated as patronage capital, a question more appropriate for a trier of facts. Furthermore, the Court found that the petition was procedurally infirm for failing to implead indispensable parties, specifically the National Electrification Administration (NEA) and the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA), as the determination of the nature of MCC/RFSC depended on whether an EC was registered with the CDA or supervised by the NEA. The petition was dismissed for lack of legal standing of most petitioners and for failure to implead indispensable parties.