Bautista v. Board of Energy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: MERALCO filed an application with the Board of Energy (BOE) for an upward revision of its rates, citing financial losses due to peso devaluation, decreased kilowatt sales, high financing costs, and operational expenses. MERALCO sought provisional approval of the revised rates, alleging a projected cash deficit and inability to maintain its distribution system. Procedural History: Petitioners, Perla C. Bautista and the Greater Manila Federation of Jeepney Operators & Drivers Association, opposed the application, arguing the increase was exorbitant and that they were adversely affected. On June 11, 1986, the BOE provisionally approved MERALCO's revised rate schedules without a hearing, effective July 1, 1986. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, asserting denial of due process. The BOE denied the motion on June 18, 1986, stating that the law empowers it to grant provisional relief without a prior hearing and that a hearing for the principal relief was scheduled for June 26, 1986. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, seeking to annul the BOE's orders dated June 11 and June 18, 1986, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction for granting provisional approval ex-parte.
Issue(s)
Whether the Board of Energy acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it provisionally approved ex-parte the application for increase in rates of MERALCO in its order dated June 11, 1986. Whether petitioners were denied due process.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The case has become moot and academic due to subsequent rate decreases by MERALCO. Even assuming the case is not moot, the BOE acted within its legal authority in granting provisional relief without a prior hearing, and petitioners were afforded due process by being given the opportunity to be heard in the subsequent full hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and ex-parte provisional approval: The Court held that the Board of Energy acted within its legal prerogative when it provisionally authorized MERALCO's application without a prior hearing. This authority is explicitly granted by Section 9(e) of PD 1206, in relation to Section 12 of RA 6173, as amended by PD 1128, and Section 16(c) of CA 146. These provisions empower the Board to grant provisional relief on motion of a party or on its own initiative, based on supporting papers, without prejudice to a final decision after a hearing. The Court emphasized that the provisional nature of the authority and the subsequent full hearing serve as safeguards against abuses. The BOE's order clearly stated that any excess amounts collected due to the provisional increase would be refunded or credited to customers if a lesser increase was ultimately found justified after the audit and hearing. On the issue of due process: The Court found no denial of due process. Petitioners were given the opportunity to present their opposition and adduce evidence during the scheduled hearing for the principal relief sought by MERALCO. The BOE's denial of the motion for reconsideration was based on the legal provision allowing provisional relief without a prior hearing, and the fact that a hearing for the final determination was already set. Therefore, petitioners were not deprived of their right to be heard; rather, they were afforded the opportunity to participate in the proceedings that would lead to a final decision on the rate increase.
Main Doctrine
The Board of Energy may grant provisional relief without a prior hearing, as authorized by law, provided that such action is supported by substantial evidence and is without prejudice to a final decision after a hearing. Petitioners' due process rights are not violated if they are afforded an opportunity to be heard during the subsequent full hearing.