Diaz v. CA

Diaz v. CA

G.R. No. L-109698 December 5, 1

Bellossillo, J.

Facts:

                On 23 January 1991, Davao Light and Power Company, Inc. (DLPC) filed with the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) an application for the approval of the sound value appraisal of its property in service.

                The Asian Appraisal Company valued the property and equipment of DLPC as of 12 March 1990 at One Billion One Hundred Forty One Million Seven Hundred Seventy Four Thousand Pesos (P1,141,774,000.00).

                On 6 December 1992, ERB approved the application of DLPC after deducting Fourteen Million Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos (P14,800,000.00) worth of property and equipment which were not used by DLPC in its operation.

                On 6 July 1992, petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing the decision of ERB on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

                In our resolution of 8 September 1992, the Supreme Court referred the case for proper disposition to the Court of Appeals which subsequently dismissed the petition on the ground that (1) the filing of the petition for review with the Supreme Court was a wrong mode of appeal, and (2) the petition did not comply with the provisions of Supreme Court Circular 1-88 in that (a) it did not state the date when the petitioners received notice of the ERB decision, (b) it did not state the date when the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, and (c) it inconsistently alleged different dates when petitioners supposedly received the denial of their motion by ERB.

                On 18 December 1992, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration contending that our resolution of 8 September 1992 was a directive for the Court of Appeals to disregard the above circular.

In its resolution of 24 March 1993, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

Issue:

                whether or not E.O. No. 172 is violative of Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution

Held:

                Yes. Since Sec. 10 of E.O. No. 172 was enacted without the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court, this provision never became effective, with the result that it cannot be deemed to have amended the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. Consequently, the authority of the Court of Appeals to decide cases from the Board of Energy, now ERB, remains.