City of Davao v. Board of Energy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Davao Light and Power Company, Inc. (DALIGHT) filed three applications before the Board of Energy (BOE): (1) approval of sound value appraisal of properties and equipment as of December 14, 1984 (BOE Case No. 85-103); (2) approval of a Contract of Sale of two diesel generating sets with the National Power Corporation (BOE Case No. 86-88); and (3) authority to increase its capital stocks from 80 Million Pesos to 110 Million Pesos (BOE Case No. 80-159). Procedural History: Petitioners, including the City of Davao and Francisco Tesorero, along with other oppositors, repeatedly requested the BOE to transfer the venue of the hearings from Manila to Davao City, citing that both DALIGHT and the oppositors are residents of Davao City, making a transfer practical, convenient, economical, and reasonable. The BOE denied these requests on multiple occasions, citing previous similar actions in cases involving other electric utilities and reiterating its previous denials in an order dated June 23, 1986. The Petition: Petitioners filed an instant petition for certiorari and mandamus, contending that the BOE committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying their request for a transfer of venue without providing cogent reasons, despite the potential for significant physical and monetary inconvenience. They argued that the BOE, as a governmental agency, possessed the facilities to move to Davao City for hearings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Board of Energy committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the petitioner's request for transfer of venue from Manila to Davao City. Whether the Board of Energy acted within its discretion in holding the hearings in Manila, considering the availability of alternative means for presenting evidence.
Ruling
The petition is unmeritorious and is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the denial of the transfer of venue: The Supreme Court held that the Board of Energy (BOE) did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the request for a transfer of venue. The Court emphasized that the BOE's action in holding hearings in Manila was well within the sphere of its discretion. Furthermore, the BOE had cited previous similar actions it had taken in cases involving other electric utilities, such as Cagayan Electric Light and Power Co., Inc. (CEPALCO), Visayan Electric Company (VECO), and Panay Electric Company (PECO), whose places of business were located in different cities, as a basis for its denial. This established precedent demonstrated a consistent policy of the BOE regarding venue, which was not arbitrary. The Court also noted a similar case, G.R. No. 71322 (John H. Osmena vs. BOE), where a petition for transfer of venue was dismissed for lack of merit. Therefore, the BOE's decision was consistent with its past practices and judicial precedent. On the issue of the Board of Energy acting within its discretion and the availability of alternative means for presenting evidence: The Supreme Court pointed out that petitioners were not without recourse and could still present their evidence in Davao City through less expensive and burdensome means. The Court specifically referred to Section 32 of the Public Service Act and Rule 24 of the Rules of Court, which allow for the reception of evidence through depositions. Under these rules, petitioners' evidence could be received in Davao City itself, through depositions taken before the Clerk of Court of any Regional Trial Court or Metropolitan Trial Court in Davao City. This provided a practical solution to the alleged inconvenience and expense of traveling to Manila, ensuring that their opposition could be effectively heard without necessitating a change in the main hearing venue.
Main Doctrine
The Board of Energy (BOE) did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying a request for transfer of venue from Manila to Davao City, as such action falls within the BOE's discretion, and established precedents supported its decision. Parties can still present evidence in Davao City through depositions.