Article III Sec. 1

Maceda vs. Energy Regulatory Board

GR 96266 July 18, 1991/GR 96349 July 18, 1991/GR 96284, July 18, 1991

Quick Digest: Petition Maceda seeks to declare the nullification of the ERB (Energy Regulatory Board)

Orders dated Dec 5 and 6, 1990 on the ground that hearings conducted on the increase in oil prices did not

allow him substantial cross-examination, a denial of due process

Facts:

1. On August 2, 1990, Upon the outbreak of Persian Gulf war, oil companies filed with the ERP for

an oil price increase

- On September 21, 1990, ERB issues an order granting a 1.42 increase/liter

- Maceda files petition to nullify; SC dismisses and reaffirms ERB’s authority even without a

hearing pursuant to section 8 of E.O. 172

- “…although a hearing is indispensable, it does not preclude the Board from ordering, ex-parte,

a provisional increase subject to its final disposition”

2. ERB sets the application for hearing with due notice to all interested parties

- 3 oil companies filed their motions for leave to file or admit amended/supplemental

applications to further increase the prices of petroleum

- ERB outlines procedure to be observed for the reception of evidence: “…all the evidence-in-

chief to be placed on record first and then the examination will come later, the cross

examination will come later…”

- Maceda claims he is denied the right to cross-examine Petron, Caltex, and Shell witnesses

and points out the denial of due process

3. In response to the president’s appeal, the subsequent increase in premium and regular gasoline

was rolled back on Dec. 10, 1990 to the levels mandated in Dec. 5, 1990

Issues:

- W/N the ERB is bound by the same rules governing court proceedings

- W/N there is substantial evidence to support the provisional relief

- W/N the price increase to augment the OPSF will constitute illegal taxation

Held:

1. W/N the ERB is bound by the same rules governing court proceedings

No. The Solicitor General points out that the order and general course of the trial is left to the discretion

of the court. Such procedure is true in administrative bodies such as the ERB which in matters of price

fixing is considered a quasi-legislative body. It is not bound by strict and technical rules of evidence.

2. W/N there is substantial evidence to support the provisional relief

Yes. The Solicitor general commented that the evidence considered by the ERB included (1)certified

copies of bills issued by crude oil suppliers, (2) reports of bankers association of the Philippines on

the peso-dollar exchange rate and (3) the OPSF status reports

3. W/N the price increase to augment the OPSF constitutes illegal taxation

No. The board order authorizing the proceeds generated to be deposited in the OPSF is not an act of

taxation because it is authorized by P.D. 1956

Dissenting Opinions:

1. Paras, J.

- The ERB has no power to tax which is solely the prerogative of Congress.

2. Padilla, J

- Any increase, provisional or otherwise, should be allowed only after the ERB has fully

determine through full hearings that it is necessary