Case Digest: Astec vs. Erc G.R. No. 192117: September 18, 2012

CASE DIGEST: ASTEC VS.
ERC
G.R. No. 192117: September 18, 2012
FACTS:
Petitioners are rural electric cooperatives established under PD No. 269. BATELEC 1, QUEZELCO 1 and
QUEZELCO II are members of the Association of Southern Tagalog Electric Cooperatives, Inc. (ASTEC).
They are engaged in the distribution of electricity.
On December 8, 1994, R.A. No. 7832 or the Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/Materials
Pilferage Act of 1994 was enacted. The law imposed a cap on the recoverable rate of system loss that
may be charged by rural electric cooperatives to their consumers. The IRR of R.A. No. 7832 required
every rural electric cooperative to file with the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB), on or before September
30, 1995, an application for approval of an amended Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) Clause
incorporating the cap on the recoverable rate of system loss to be included in its schedule of rates.
On June 8, 2001, R.A. No. 9136 or the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA) was also
enacted. Section 38 of the EPIRA abolished the ERB, and created the Energy Regulatory Commission
(ERC). The ERC issued an order which provides that rural electric cooperatives should only recover from
their members and patrons the actual cost of power purchased from power suppliers. The ERC also
ordered BATELEC, et al. to refund their respective over-recoveries to end-users. In addition, the ERC
also adopted the new “grossed-up factor mechanism” in the computation of the over-recoveries of the
electric cooperatives to be remitted to their consumers.
Thus, BATELEC 1, et. al moved to reconsider the said orders but the ERC denied the same. On appeal,
the CA upheld the validity of the ERC Orders.
Hence, this petition BATELEC 1, et. al. aver that these ERC Orders are invalid for lack of publication, non-
submission to the U.P. Law Center, and for their retroactive application.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the assailed orders are invalid for non-publication, non-submission to the U.P. Law
Center and for their retroactivity?
HELD:
The petition is partly, meritorious.
Ruling under Civil Law, Art.2 (Publication of Laws)

Procedural due process demands that administrative rules and regulations be published in order to be
effective. Statues, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition
for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is
fixed by the legislature. Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is
to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation.
There are, however, several exceptions to the requirement of publication. An interpretative regulation
does not require publication in order to be effective. The policy guidelines of the ERC on the treatment
of discounts extended by power suppliers are interpretative regulations. Publication is not necessary for
the effectivity of the policy guideline. The policy guidelines of the ERC on the treatment of discounts
extended by power suppliers are not retrospective. It did not take away or impair any vested rights of
the rural electric cooperatives. Furthermore, it did not create a new obligation and impose a new duty,
nor did it attach a new disability.
However, the grossed-up factor mechanism amends the IRR of R.A. No. 7832 as it serves as an additional
numerical standards that must be observed and applied by rural electric cooperatives in the
implementation of the PPA. The grossed-up factor mechanism is therefore an administrative rule that
should be published and submitted to the U.P. Law Center in order to be effective.
As previously stated, it does not appear from the records that the grossed-up factor mechanism was
published and submitted to the U.P. Law Center. Thus, it is ineffective and may not serve as a basis for
the computation of over-recoveries. The application of the grossed-up factor mechanism to periods of
PPA implementation prior to its publication and disclosure renders the said mechanism invalid for
having been applied retroactively.

Case Digest: Astec vs. Erc G.R. No. 192117: September 18, 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest: Astec vs. Erc G.R. No. 192117: September 18, 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest: Astec vs. Erc G.R. No. 192117: September 18, 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE DIGEST: ASTEC VS.

The petition is partly, meritorious.

Ruling under Civil Law, Art.2 (Publication of Laws)

You might also like