National Electrification Administration vs. Hon. Filemon Mendoza GR No. L-62038 Sept.

25, 1985 Facts: Petitioner Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative I (ORMECO for brevity) sent out a notice informing their consumers that an increase on rates of electricity shall be charged authorized by the National Electrification Administration (NEA). Thereafter, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) filed a petition for injunction with then Court of First Instance preventing the implementation of said rate increase in which respondent judge issued a restraining order instructing ORMECO to refrain from enforcing said rate increase. ORMECO then prayed for the dismissal of such petition and for the restraining order earlier issued by the court be lifted. Such order was then lifted by the judge. However upon the Motion of Reconsideration filed by private respondent IBP, respondent reinstated said restraining order. Consequently, petitioner NAE filed a Motion for Intervention which was then granted. NAE filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that respondent court had no jurisdiction over the subject case as such matter is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of NAE. An order was then issued denying the Motion to Dismiss of petitioner NAE as respondent court declared that such matter is within their jurisdiction as no due process or hearing took place. Afterwards, respondent court issued orders (1) directing the Provincial Auditor to assist the IBP in examining the records of petitioner ORMECO and; (2) fixing a rate of P1.72/kwh.

Issues: (1) Whether or not P.D. 269 empowers NAE for the increase of rates for the reason that there was no notice of public hearing or due process. (2) Whether or not the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over such matter.

Held: (1) Yes, P.D. 269 does empower petitioner NAE as to the increase of electric rates. This Court held that lack of notice of public hearing or due process does not render the approval of petitioner NAE untenable as the consensus and members of the cooperative, and the consumers or members of the cooperative are already represented by the Board of Directory whom they had elected. In contrary to respondent s claim that such provision does not empower NAE without due process is unacceptable as the consumers herein, are members of the ORMECO which is a non-profit organization. Thus, there is no longer a necessity for due process. (2) No, the Court of First Instance did not have jurisdiction over such matter as it has been stipulated between NAE and ORMECO that rates and charges affecting the cooperatives shall be

subject to the approval by the Board of Administrators of the NAE. Thus, respondent court cannot usurp for itself the power to review the rates charged by ORMECO as such power has been vested by law to the NAE and to no other. Furthermore, in the case of Pineda vs. Latin, it has been stated that the Court of First Instance cannot interfere with an order of regulatory Commission as it cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Commission on what should be or should not be done as it is not the intention of the legislature.