Energy Regulatory Commission v. Therma Mobile, Inc.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 244449 and 244455-56. September 29, 2021.]

ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, petitioner, vs.THERMA MOBILE, INC., MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, AND AP RENEWABLES, INC., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. Nos. 244449 and 244455-56 (Energy Regulatory Commission v. Therma Mobile, Inc., Manila Electric Company, and AP Renewables, Inc.). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision 2 dated May 23, 2018 and Resolution dated January 28, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 152588, 152612, and 152613, which affirmed the Orders of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) denying the motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed by respondents Therma Mobile, Inc. (Therma Mobile), Manila Electric Company (Meralco), and AP Renewables, Inc. (APRI).

Facts of the Case

On December 26, 2013, the ERC, as a regulatory body for the energy sector under Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9136 or the Electric Industry Reform Act (EPIRA), issued Office Order No. 38, constituting an investigating unit to investigate the possible commission of anti-competitive behavior, abuse of market power, or other unfair trade or practices of respondents, following the Malampaya plant shutdown which affected the power supply in November and December of 2013. 3

After due investigation, the investigating unit found a prima facie case against Meralco, Therma Mobile, and APRI, for violation of the provisions of EPIRA on anti-competitive behavior, abuse of market power, and other unfair trade or practices. Due to this finding, the investigating officer filed before the ERC: (1) a complaint dated June 4, 2015, docketed as ERC Case No. 2015-25MC, against Meralco and Therma Mobile, alleging anti-competitive behavior, particularly, economic withholding under Rule 11, Section 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of EPIRA; (2) a complaint dated June 4, 2015, docketed as ERC Case No. 2015-27MC, against Therma Mobile for anti-competitive behavior, particularly, physical withholding under Rule 11, Section 8 (e) of the EPIRA IRR; and (3) a complaint dated June 9, 2015, docketed as ERC Case No. 2015-38MC against APRI for anti-competitive behavior, particularly, physical withholding under Rule 11, Section 8 (e) of the EPIRA IRR. 4

On July 21, 2015, after the filing of the said complaints, R.A. 10667 or the "Philippine Competition Act" (PCA) was enacted creating the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC). The PCA vested PCC with the original and primary jurisdiction over enforcement and implementation of the provisions of the PCA and its IRR. The PCA was given jurisdiction to particularly resolve competition-related issues. 5

Due to this development, Meralco, Therma Mobile, and APRI separately filed motions to dismiss the complaints against them on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the ERC. According to respondents, the PCA conferred upon the PCC, jurisdiction over all competition-related issues, including economic and physical withholding under the IRR of EPIRA. Hence, the respondents argued that the ERC is divested of any jurisdiction to hear and decide the cases filed against them. 6

Ruling of the Energy Regulatory Commission

On February 6, 2017, the ERC denied Meralco and Therma Mobile's motions to dismiss. 7 On February 14, 2017, the ERC likewise denied APRI's motion to dismiss. 8

The ERC held that both PCC and ERC exercise concurrent jurisdiction over anti-competitive cases in the energy sector. 9 The ERC concluded that Section 55 which is the repealing clause of the PCA did not categorically repeal Section 45 of the EPIRA which deals with ERC's jurisdiction over anti-competitive cases in the energy sector. What was expressly repealed was only Section 43 (u) 10 of the EPIRA. Hence, it cannot be said that there was an implied repeal of Section 45. 11

The ERC also decided that it has already acquired jurisdiction over the cases before the enactment of the PCA, hence, it will have continuing jurisdiction over the same. 12

Respondents moved for reconsideration, but their motions were denied. Hence, respondents filed petitions for certiorari to the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its May 23, 2018 Decision, 13 the CA ruled that that PCC's jurisdiction over anti-competition issues and cases is: (1) original, which means that it has the power to take cognizance of a case at its inception; (2) exclusive, which precludes the idea of co-existence with other regulatory bodies; and (3) primary, which means in case of conflict between the jurisdictions of PCC and other regulatory bodies, preference shall be given to the PCC. 14

The CA added that the repealing clause of PCA is both an express and implied repeal. The PCA not only expressly repealed Section 43 (u) of the EPIRA, which provides that "[t]he ERC shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases contesting rates, fees, fines and penalties imposed by the ERC in the exercise of the abovementioned powers, functions and responsibilities and over all cases involving disputes between and among participants or players in the energy sector," it also broadly declared that all laws inconsistent with the PCA are repealed, amended or otherwise modified. Since Section 45 of the EPIRA grants to the ERC the power to "monitor and penalize any market power abuse or anti-competitive or discriminatory act or behavior by any participant in the electric power industry," it is therefore inconsistent with the original, exclusive, and primary jurisdiction of the PCC. Thus, Section 45 is superseded by the PCA. The CA held that the express repeal of Section 43 (u) of the EPIRA carries with it the repeal also of Section 45. 15

However, the CA found that the PCA has no retroactive effect. Since the complaints against respondents were filed before the enactment of the PCA, they are still within the jurisdiction of the ERC. Additionally, when a court or tribunal already acquired jurisdiction over an action or claim, its jurisdiction continues up to the conclusion of the same. 16

Disagreeing with the CA's conclusion that the PCA has exclusive, original, and primary jurisdiction over competition-related issues concerning the energy sector, the ERC filed this petition for review on certiorari. 17

Respondents on the other hand manifested that they have accepted the ruling of the CA and are no longer questioning the jurisdiction of the ERC over the complaints filed against them.

Issue

Whether the ERC has jurisdiction over the complaints filed to it before the enactment of the PCA, for violation of the provisions of the EPIRA on anti-competitive behavior, abuse of market power, or other unfair trade or practices.

Ruling of the Court

After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to deny the petition for review on certiorari for failure of the ERC to show that the CA committed a reversible error in rendering the assailed decision and resolution.

The issue in this case is simple — whether the ERC retains jurisdiction over the complaints filed against respondents before the enactment of the PCA.

The ERC and CA answered correctly in the affirmative. At the time the complaints for anti-competitive behavior were filed against respondents, the ERC had jurisdiction over the same, in accordance with the powers granted to it by the EPIRA. It is a settled rule that the court or tribunal which acquired jurisdiction over a case by the filing of the complaint, never lost said jurisdiction despite the passage of a later law transferring jurisdiction to another court or administrative body. This is known as the principle of adherence of jurisdiction — that once it is attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, and it retains jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case. 18

Here, the complaints against respondents were all filed before the enactment of the PCA. Verily, the PCA was non-existent then and it is the EPIRA that governs issues regarding the energy sector at that time. EPIRA explicitly vested with the ERC jurisdiction to resolve respondents' cases. In addition, the PCA expressly states that it has no retroactive effect. 19 Hence, it is only proper that the complaints filed against respondents before the enactment of the PCA should stay with the ERC.

Based on the foregoing, the CA's discussion on PCC's primary, original, and exclusive jurisdiction over cases filed after the enactment of the PCA is immaterial in resolving this case. The Court cannot determine issues which are not fully litigated. As above-mentioned, the only issue here is whether the ERC properly acquired jurisdiction over the complaints filed to it before the enactment of the PCA. The resolution of this issue need not touch upon the interpretation of the provisions of the PCA and the delineation of the jurisdiction of the PCC vis-à-vis the other sector regulators, such as the ERC. This case is not the proper forum for the Court of Appeals to determine whether the PCC's jurisdiction over competition cases filed after the enactment of the PCA is primary, original, and exclusive over all regulatory agencies of the government.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated May 23, 2018 and the Resolution dated January 28, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 152588, 152612, and 152613 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, subject to the foregoing qualification.

SO ORDERED." (Leonen, J., on official leave.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-32.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices Carmelita Salandanan Manahan and Rafael Antonio M. Santos; id. at 46-70.

3.Id. at 49.

4.Id. at 49-50.

5.Id. at 50.

6.Id.

7.Id. at 236-244.

8.Id. at 245-253.

9.Id. at 237.

10. The ERC shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases contesting rates, fees, fines and penalties imposed by the ERC in the exercise of the abovementioned powers, functions and responsibilities and over all cases involving disputes between and among participants or players in the energy sector.

11.Rollo, pp. 237-238.

12.Id. at 241.

13.Supra note 2.

14.Rollo, p. 59.

15.Id. at 60.

16.Id. at 62-63.

17.Id. at 3-36.

18.Aruego, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 325 Phil. 191 (1996).

19. Section 56. Effectivity Clause. — This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation. Notwithstanding any provision herein, this Act shall have no retroactive effect.