BF Homes v Meralco G.R. No. 171624 | SCRA | December 6, 2010 | Leonardo-De Castro, J. Petition: Petition for Review on Certiorari Petitioners: BF Homes and Philippines Waterworks and Construction Co. Respondents: Manila Electric Company DOCTRINE The doctrine of primary jurisdiction
d. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where the administrative agency, as in the case of ERC, exercises its quasi-judicial and adjudicatory function e. The cause of action originates from the Meralco Refund Decision as it involves the perceived right of the BF Homes and PWCC to compel the latter to set-off or apply their refund to their present electric bill f. Such right of refund however must comply with the approved schedule of ERC g. Hence, jurisdiction lies with ERC. Since RTC has no jurisdiction, it was also devoid of any authority to act on the application of BF Homes and PWCC for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction contained in the same Petition
Relevant Provision DISPOSITION FACTS a. BF Homes and PWCC distributes water drawn from deep wells using pumps run by electricity supplied by MERALCO in BF Homes subdivisions in Paraaque City, Las Pias City, Caloocan City, and Quezon City b. In Republic v Meralco, the SC ordered MERALCO to refund its customers, which shall be credited against the customers future consumption, the excess average amount of P0.167 per kilowatt hour starting with the customers billing cycles beginning February 1998 a. Due to this ruling, BF Homes and PWCC asked for refund in the amount of P11,834,570.91. c. Accordingly, MERALCO disconnected electric supply to BF Homes and PWCCs’ 16 water pumps located in BF Homes in Paranaque, Caloocan, and Quezon City, which thus disrupted water supply in those areas a. Meralco demanded from BF Homes and PWCC the payment of electric bills amounting to P4,717,768.15 b. BF Homes and PWCC then requested that such amount be applied against the P11,834,570.91 worth of refund asked from Meralco. Denied. c. Again, 5 more water pumps was were cut off power supply. Meralco threatened to cut more power supply d. BF Homes and PWCC filed a case in RTC asking for damages plus writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order a. In Meralco’s answer, it allege that the service contracts provides that “The Company reserves the right to discontinue service in case the customer is in arrears in the payment of bills” and such right is sanctioned and approved by the rules and regulations of ERB b. As to the refund, Meralco claims that the refund has to be implemented in accordance with the guidelines and schedule to be approved by the ERC c. Meralco also allege that RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED. The Decision dated October 27, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 82826 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the Regional Trial Court, Branch 202 of Las Pias City, is ORDERED to dismiss the Petition [With Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and for the Immediate Issuance of Restraining Order] of BF Homes, Inc. and Philippine Waterworks and Construction Corporation in Civil Case No. 03-0151. Costs against BF Homes, Inc. and Philippine Waterworks and Construction Corporation. SO ORDERED
ISSUES 1. W/N the remedy of injunction is proper 2. W/N the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter RULING & RATIO a. Yes, the injunction is granted by the Court a. The right of Meralco under the said service contract must succumb to the paramount substantial and constitutional rights of the public to the usage and enjoyment of waters in their community b. Such injunction must be given in order to prevent social unrest in the community for having been deprived of the use and enjoyment of waters b. No, the Court has no jurisdiction over the case of refund a. In determining which body has jurisdiction over a case, the better policy is to consider not only the status or relationship of the parties but also the nature of the action that is the subject of their controversy b. In Meralco v ERB, the Court traced the legislative history of the regulatory agencies which preceded the ERC to determine the legislative intent as to its jurisdiction c. Accordingly, ERC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases contesting rates, fees, fines, and penalties imposed by the ERC in the exercise of its powers, functions and responsibilities Page 1 of 1
