G.R. No. 252035, May 04, 2021
Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Commission on Audit, National Power Corporation and Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation, Respondents.

FACTS

In 2002, the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) adopted the Special Program to Enhance Electricity Demand (SPEED), directing the National Power Corporation (NPC) to grant discounts to qualified industrial customers. NPC failed to implement the full discount of P0.80/kwh from the program’s start on October 26, 2002. The ERC, in an Order dated December 19, 2006, directed NPC to grant Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation (CAPASCO) the 0.80/kWh discount. This order was affirmed by the ERC in a subsequent Order dated May 18, 2009, which specifically directed NPC to immediately grant CAPASCO a SPEED discount of P24,637,094.65. NPC appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 109747), which affirmed the ERC’s orders in a Decision dated May 27, 2010, which became final and executory on June 18, 2010. The ERC issued an Order of Execution dated July 18, 2011, directing NPC to refund the amount of P24,637,094.65. NPC did not comply, and CAPASCO was compelled to pay the amount to MERALCO on October 10, 2013. CAPASCO filed a Petition for Money Claim before the Commission on Audit (COA). The COA, in Decision No. 2018-256 dated March 15, 2018, denied the claim, reasoning that the exact refund amount was not indicated in the final CA decision but only in the ERC’s Order of Execution, and that it was not shown how the amount was computed. COA denied CAPASCO’s motion for reconsideration via En Banc Notice No. 2020-012 dated February 12, 2020.

ISSUE

Did the COA commit grave abuse of discretion when it denied CAPASCO’s money claim despite the final and executory rulings of the Court of Appeals and the ERC?

RULING

Yes, the COA committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court held that the final and executory Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the ERC orders, had conclusively settled CAPASCO’s entitlement to the SPEED discount. The amount of P24,637,094.65, while specified in the ERC’s implementing orders and writ of execution, was integral to and a necessary consequence of the final judgment. The COA, in reviewing the money claim, could not go behind the final judgment to re-examine the basis of the award. Its duty was merely to ascertain the existence of the final judgment and order its payment. By disregarding the final judgment and imposing additional requirements for proof of the exact amount, the COA effectively nullified the final decision of the Court of Appeals, which constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The Court directed the COA to approve CAPASCO’s money claim in the amount of P24,637,094.65.