by LEONARD D. POSTRADO, mb.com.ph - The Supreme Court (SC) threw out a petition filed by several consumer groups seeking to nullify an Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) order approving Meralco’s 26.9 centavo increase in its distribution rate starting 2010.
In a 16-page decision penned by Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes P.A. Sereno, the Court’s Second Division denied the petition of the National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc. (Nasecore), Federation of Village Associations (FOVA), and Federation of Las Piñas Village Association (Folva) to cancel ERC’s December 14, 2009, order. The petitioners had claimed that the ERC order violates their right to due process.
In its order, the ERC approved the implementation of a Maximum Average Price (MAP) for 2010 of P1.4917 per kwh starting Meralco’s January, 2010 billing.
“The Court is of the opinion that considering the facts in this case, including all the events that occured both prior to and subsequent to the issuance of the December 14, 2009 decision, the ERC did not deprive petitioners of their right to be heard,” the SC ruled.
Based on the records, the High Court said the petitioner had been given notice to attend all the hearings conducted by the ERC, but they voluntarily failed to appear the hearings.
After the issuance of the assailed December 14, 2009 ERC order, the Court noted that a certain Engineer Robert Mallilin, one of those opposing Meralco’s application for adjustment in distribution rates, filed a motion for reconsideration before the ERC.
On January 25, 2010, ERC issued an order directing Nasecore, Folva, and FOVA to file their respective comments on Mallilin’s MR.
Instead of filing their comments, Nasecore and FOVA begged off from participating in the proceedings before the ERC on the ground that they have already elevated the issue before the High Tribunal.
Meanwhile, Meralco filed a manifestation and motion wherein it expressed its decision to voluntarily suspend the implementation of the December 14, 2009, order pending ERC’s resolution of Mallilin’s MR, which was subsequently granted by ERC.
During the scheduled February 5, 2010, hearing on the issue, only Meralco appeared and neither the petitioners nor Mallilin participated in the proceedings.
“Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is granted, there is no denial of due process. It must not be overlooked that prior to the issuance of the assailed decision, petitioners were given several opportunities to attend the hearings and to present all their pleadings and evidence in the MAP 2010 case. Petitioners voluntarily failed to appear in most of those hearings,” the Court said.
The SC also junked the claim of the petitioners that some 4.3 million customers of Meralco stand to suffer “irreparable injury” if the ERC’s order would not be stayed through the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO).
“But this asserted injury can be repaired, because had petitioners participated in the proceedings before the ERC and the latter had found merit in their appeal, the undue increase in electric bills shall be refunded to the consumers,” the SC explained.
The SC added that all the other issues raised by petitioners in connection with MAP 2010 are factual in nature and should be raised before the ERC.
