GR L 109698; (December, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-109698 December 5, 1994
ANTONIO DIAZ AND KOSUMO DABAW, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD AND DAVAO LIGHT AND POWER CO., INC., respondents.
FACTS
On January 23, 1991, Davao Light and Power Company, Inc. (DLPC) filed an application with the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) for approval of the sound value appraisal of its property. The Asian Appraisal Company valued DLPC’s property and equipment at P1,141,774,000.00 as of March 12, 1990. The ERB approved the application on December 6, 1992, after deducting P14,800,000.00 worth of assets not used in DLPC’s operations.
Petitioners Antonio Diaz and Kosumo Dabaw filed a petition for review on certiorari directly with the Supreme Court on July 6, 1992, assailing the ERB decision. The Supreme Court, in a resolution dated September 8, 1992, referred the case to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, citing that the filing with the Supreme Court was a wrong mode of appeal and that the petition failed to comply with Supreme Court Circular No. 1-88 due to procedural deficiencies, such as not stating the date of receipt of the ERB decision and inconsistent allegations regarding the denial of a motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for review filed by petitioners for being an erroneous mode of appeal and for non-compliance with procedural rules.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the dismissal by the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the proper appellate jurisdiction and strict adherence to procedural rules. Executive Order No. 172, which created the ERB, contained a provision (Section 10) stating that appeals from ERB decisions should be filed with the Supreme Court via a petition for review. However, this provision was enacted without the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court as required by Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution , and thus never became effective. Consequently, the prior rule under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, which made decisions of the Board of Energy (ERB’s predecessor) appealable to the then Intermediate Appellate Court (now the Court of Appeals), remained in force.
This was explicitly confirmed by Supreme Court Circular No. 1-91, which designated the Court of Appeals as the proper forum for appeals from quasi-judicial agencies like the ERB. Furthermore, Circular No. 2-90 and established jurisprudence mandate that an appeal taken to the wrong court must be dismissed outright, and no transfer of such erroneous appeals is permitted. The Supreme Court’s referral of the case to the Court of Appeals was not an instruction to disregard these circulars but to dispose of the case in conformity with them. Lawyers are presumed to know these rules and circulars, which are published for general circulation. The dismissal for procedural infirmities, including non-compliance with Circular No. 1-88, is justified to enforce strict observance of rules and prevent needless delays in judicial proceedings.