Gerochi v DOE

7/28/2019 Gerochi v DOE

1/4

[G.R. No. 159796. April 5, 2005]

GEROCHI vs. DEPT. OF ENERGY

EN BANC

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 5 2005.

G.R. No. 159796 (Romeo P. Gerochi, Katulong ng Bayan [KB] and Environmentalist

Consumers Network, Inc. (ECN) v. Department of Energy [DOE], Energy Regulatory

Commission [ERC], National Power Corporation [NPC], Power Sector Assets and Liabilities

Management Group [PSALM], Strategic Power Utilities Group [SPUG] and Panay ElectricCompany, Inc. [PECO].)

Under consideration is the Motion to Require Respondents to Answer Interrogatories filed by thepetitioners. They seek an order to compel the respondents to answer the written interrogatories

served upon the latter, to wit:

1. How much is the total amount of universal charge for missionary electrification has so far

been collected?

2. How much is the universal charge for environmental charge has so far been collected as of

this date since implementation?

3. Where are the funds presently deposited and who has the custody thereof?

4. What portion of the collected universal charge has so far been disbursed for any specific

purpose or projects and what are the specific purpose or projects to which they were spent?

Petitioner Romeo P. Gerochi, a taxpayer and a consumer of electricity, and Katulong ng Bayan

(KB) and Environmentalist Consumers Network, Inc. (ECN), both non-stock, non-profit

organizations, filed the instant petition[1]

cralaw as an original action to assail the constitutionality ofSection 34 of Republic Act No. 9136 and its implementing rules and regulations. Section 34

reads as follows:

SECTION 34. Universal Charge. - Within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act, a

un iversal charge to be determined, fixed and approved by the ERC, shall be imposed on allelectricity and end-users for the following purposes:

(a) Payment for the stranded debts in excess of the amount assumed by the National

Government and stranded contract costs of NPC and as well as qualified stranded contract costsof distribution utilities resulting from the restructuring of the industry;

(b) Missionary electrification;
http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn1http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn1http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn1


2/4

(c) The equalization of the taxes and royalties applied to indigenous or renewable sources of

energy vis--vis imported energy fuels;

(d) An environmental charge equivalent to one-fourth of one centavo per kilowatt-hour

(P0.0025/kWh), which shall accrue to an environmental fund to be used solely for watershed

rehabilitation and management. Said fund shall be managed by NPC under existingarrangements; and

(e) A charge to account for all forms of cross-subsidies for a period not exceeding three (3)years.

The universal charge shall be a non-bypassable charge which shall be passed on and collected

from all end-users on a monthly basis by the distribution utilities. Collections by the distribution

utilities and the TRANSCO in any given month shall be remitted to the PSALM Corp. on or

before the fifteenth (15th) of the succeeding month, net of any amount due to the distributionutility. Any end-user or self-generating entity not connected to a distribution utility shall remit its

corresponding universal charge directly to the TRANSCO.

The PSALM Corp., as administrator of the fund, shall create a Special Trust Fund which shall be

disbursed only for the purpose specified herein in an open and transparent manner. All amount

collected for the universal charge shall be distributed to the respective beneficiaries within areasonable period to be provided by the ERC. (Emphasis supplied)

Rule 18 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of said law provides:

Within one (1) year from the effectivity of the Act, there shall be a Universal Charge to be

determined, fixed and approved by the ERC that shall be imposed on all electricity end-users,

including self-generation entities.

The petitioners assert that the implementation of the universal charge provided for under theaforementioned provisions "is in all essence and purpose, a tax which is to be collected from all

electric end-users and self-generating entities. Since the power to tax is strictly a legislative

function, the unlimited delegation of such power to the ERC, an administrative agency, is thus,patently unconstitutional."

Petitioners then pray that "Section 34 and related sections of Rep. Act NO. 9136 should bedeclared unconstitutional, hence null and void; the universal charge being charged to the

consumers be ordered refunded to the consumers; and the respondents be ordered to stop and

refrain from implementing, collecting and charging the universal charge."

[2]cralaw

On 26 January 2004, respondents DOE, ERC and the NPC filed their joint comment[3]

cralaw to the

petition.

On 16 February 2004, respondent PSALM likewise filed its comment[4]

cralaw to the petition.

On 13 July 2004, the petitioners filed their reply[5]

cralaw to the comments of the respondents.
http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn2http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn2http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn2http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn3http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn3http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn3http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn4http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn4http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn4http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn5http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn5http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn5http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn4http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn3http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn2


3/4

In its Resolution[6]

cralaw of 03 August 2004, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition; treat

the comment as answer; and require the parties to submit their respective memoranda within

thirty (30) days from notice thereof.

Except for PECO, all the parties filed their respective memoranda.[7]

cralaw

On 18 January 2004, the petitioners furnished the Court with a copy[8]

cralaw ofwritteninterrogatories

they wished to propound to the respondents, which the Court duly noted in its Resolution[9]

cralaw

of 15

February 2005.

The Court resolves to deny the petitioners' Motion to Require Respondents to AnswerInterrogatories for lack of merit.

Although the field of inquiry that maybe covered by depositions or interrogatories is as broad as

when the interrogated party is called as witness to testify orally at trial, the inquiry must onlyextend to what is relevant and material to the issue subject of the suit as provided for in Section 5

of Rule 25 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, as amended, which reads:

SEC. 5. Scope and use of interrogatories. - Interrogatories may relate to any matters that can be

inquired into under section 2[10]

cralaw of Rule 23, ...

In the case at bar, the written interrogatories served by the petitioners on the respondents deal

with ancillary matters which, although may be inquired into through proper modes of discoveryprovided in the Rules, are not directly related to the main issue, i.e., the constitutionality of

Section 34 and other related sections of Rep. Act No. 9316. The written interrogatories sent to

the respondents are for the purpose of finding out the total amount of universal charge already

collected. Undoubtedly, the factual answers to the queries do not in any way help the Court in

resolving the questions of whether or not the universal charge provided for by Rep. Act. No.9136 is a tax and whether or not there is any undue delegation to the ERC by the legislature of

such power to tax with respect to the determination and collection of the universal charge.Hence, the written interrogatories are not in order.

Nonetheless, the court admonishes the respondents for ignoring the written interrogatories. Therules on discovery are intended to enable a party to obtain knowledge of material facts within the

knowledge of the adverse party. If the party to whom the interrogatories is directed would wish

not to answer the questions it should avail of the appropriate steps to resist the request. Under the

Rules,[11]

cralaw opposition to written interrogatories may be filed. But, instead of opposing the writteninterrogatories, respondents simply ignored the pleading. Such posture undermined the rules on

modes of discovery and may even constitute an affront on the dignity of the Court.

WHEREFORE, the Motion to Require Respondents to Answer Interrogatories filed by the

petitioners is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,
http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn6http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn6http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn7http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn7http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn7http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn8http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn8http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn9http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn9http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn10http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn10http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn10http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn11http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn11http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn11http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn11http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn10http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn9http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn8http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn7http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftn6


4/4

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

[1]cralaw Rollo p. 3; filed on September 24, 2003.

[2]cralaw Petition, Rollo p. 8.

[3]cralaw Treated by the Court as their joint answer to the complaint.

[4]cralaw Treated by the Court as its answer to the complaint.

[5]cralaw Rollo, p. 102.


[7]cralaw Rollo, pp. 123, 154 and 168.



[10]cralaw

SEC. 2. Scope of examination. - Unless otherwise ordered by the court as provided bysection 16 or 18 of this Rule, the deponent maybe examined regarding any matter, not privileged,

which is relevant to the subject of the pending action, whether relating to the claim or defense ofany other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of

any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having

knowledge of relevant facts.

[11]cralaw Section 3, Rule 25 of the Revised Rules of Court.
http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref1http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref1http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref2http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref2http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref3http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref3http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref4http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref4http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref5http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref5http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref6http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref6http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref7http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref7http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref8http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref8http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref9http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref9http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref10http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref10http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref11http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref11http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref11http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref10http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref9http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref8http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref7http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref6http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref5http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref4http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref3http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref2http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/april/159796B.php#_ftnref1

Gerochi v DOE

Documents

Transcript of Gerochi v DOE