View full case

CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

FACTS:

The petitioner, the Chamber of Real Estate and Builders' Associations, Inc., is a non-stock, non-profit corporation representing housing and real estate businesses. They filed a petition for certiorari seeking to nullify Section 2.6 of the Distribution Services Open Access Rules (DSOAR), which requires residential end-users located beyond 30 meters from existing electrical lines to advance the cost of extending these lines.

They argue that the provision is unconstitutional and violates the due process and equal protection clauses. They claim that burdening residential end-users with the installation costs contradicts the legislative franchise of distribution utilities to be financially capable of providing the service. They also argue that there is no substantial distinction between end-users within and beyond 30 meters.

The respondents, the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) and Manila Electric Company (MERALCO), argue that the provision is a valid exercise of police power aimed at promoting the general welfare. They claim that it addresses an inequitable situation where the costs of extension facilities benefiting a few consumers are equally shared. They also argue that there are real and substantial differences between end-users within and beyond 30 meters. They contend that the provision is consistent with the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) and ensures affordable electricity prices.

The ERC argues that the petitioner lacks legal standing to file the suit and that they failed to prove grave abuse of discretion on the part of the ERC. MERALCO argues that a petition for certiorari is an improper remedy and that the petitioner failed to observe the doctrine.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner has legal standing to challenge the validity of Section 2.6 of the DSOAR.

  2. Whether the case involves a transcendental issue.

  3. Whether the petitioner correctly availed of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

  4. Whether the petitioner has the legal standing to file a petition for certiorari against the assailed DSOAR provision.

  5. Whether the petition for certiorari is the proper remedy considering the availability of other remedies.

RULING:

  1. The petitioner does not have legal standing to challenge the validity of Section 2.6 of the DSOAR. The petitioner is not a residential end-user affected by the provision, and its members are not residential end-users either. The provision specifically pertains to the rights and obligations of distribution utilities (DU) and residential end-users, not the petitioner or its members. The petitioner's claim that subdivision developers are affected by the provision because they are required to advance the cost of installing additional lines and facilities is incorrect, as this requirement exists regardless of the validity of the assailed provision.

  2. The case does not involve a transcendental issue. The determinants for a case of transcendental importance are absent, namely: the involvement of public funds, an undisputed disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency, and the absence of parties with a more direct and specific interest in the issues raised. The petitioner failed to establish any of these determinants.

  3. The petitioner incorrectly availed of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Rule 65 is directed against tribunals, boards, or officers exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. In this case, the remedy of certiorari is not applicable since the challenge does not involve a decision, ruling, or act of such a tribunal, board, or officer.

  4. The petitioner does not have the legal standing to file a petition for certiorari against the assailed DSOAR provision.

  5. The petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy considering the availability of other remedies.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Legal standing or locus standi requires a party to have a personal and substantial interest in the case, arising from a direct injury it has sustained or will sustain as a result of the challenged governmental action.

  • Transcendental importance is determined by the character of the funds or other assets involved, the presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition, and the lack of any party with a more direct and specific interest in the issues being raised.

  • Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a remedy directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions that has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.

  • Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that can only be granted under closely defined grounds and procedures.

  • Judicial functions are exercised by a body or officer authorized to determine the law and legal rights of the parties. Quasi-judicial functions are exercised by administrative officers or bodies authorized to investigate facts and draw conclusions for official action.

  • A petition for certiorari must allege with certainty the facts and must not involve appellate jurisdiction.

  • The proper remedy for assailing the validity of a rule or statute is a petition for declaratory relief.

  • The Supreme Court will not directly entertain a petition for certiorari unless there are exceptional and compelling circumstances justifying immediate resort to the Court.

  • Suspension of rules of procedure may be allowed in cases involving clear violations of the Constitution.

  • To seek the remedy of certiorari, litigants and their lawyers must scrupulously observe the ground rules for the remedy's grant.