8/22/2021 G.R. No.
G.R. No. 127371 April 25, 2002 PHILIPPINE SINTER CORPORATION and PHIVIDEC INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY, petitioners, vs. CAGA… 8/22/2021 G.R. No. 127371 April 25, 2002 PHILIPPINE SINTER CORPORATION and PHIVIDEC INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY, petitioners, vs. CAGA…
CPA-LAWYER PHILIPPINES RULING: No.
AUGUST 4, 2019 ATTY. ALDRIN JOSE M. CANA, CPA CASE DIGEST An injunction to stay a final and executory decision is unavailing except only after a showing that facts and
circumstances exist which would render execution unjust or inequitable, or that a change in the situation of the
parties occurred. Here, no such exception exists as shown by the facts earlier narrated. To disturb the final and
executory decision of the ERB in an injunction suit is to brazenly disregard the rule on finality of judgments.
G.R. No. 127371 April 25, 2002 PHILIPPINE
Administrative decisions must end sometime, as fully as public policy demands that finality be written on judicial
SINTER CORPORATION and PHIVIDEC controversies. Public interest requires that proceedings already terminated should not be altered at every step, for
the rule of non quieta movere prescribes that what had already been terminated should not be disturbed. A disregard
INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY, petitioners, vs. of this principle does not commend itself to sound public policy.
CAGAYAN ELECTRIC POWER and LIGHT CO., Corollarily, Section 10 of Executive Order No. 172 (the law creating the ERB) provides that a review of its
decisions or orders is lodged in the Supreme Court. Settled is the rule that where the law provides for an appeal
INC., respondent. from the decisions of administrative bodies to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, it means that such
bodies are co-equal with the Regional Trial Courts in terms of rank and stature, and logically, beyond the control of
the latter.
DOCTRINE: Hence, the trial court, being co-equal with the ERB, cannot interfere with the decision of the latter. It bears
stressing that this doctrine of non-interference of trial courts with co-equal administrative bodies is intended to
Public interest requires that proceedings already terminated should not be altered at every step, for the rule of non
ensure judicial stability in the administration of justice whereby the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction
quieta movere prescribes that what had already been terminated should not be disturbed. A disregard of this
may not be opened, modified or vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction.
principle does not commend itself to sound public policy.
Settled is the rule that where the law provides for an appeal from the decisions of administrative bodies to the
Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, it means that such bodies are co-equal with the Regional Trial Courts in
terms of rank and stature, and logically, beyond the control of the latter. Hence, the trial court, being co-equal with
the ERB, cannot interfere with the decision of the latter.
FACTS: In 1987, President Corazon Aquino and her Cabinet approved a Cabinet Reform Policy for the power Published by Atty. Aldrin Jose M. Cana, CPA
sector and issued a Cabinet Memorandum, Item No. 2, which provides: “Continue direct connection for industries
authorized under the BOI-NPC Memorandum of Understanding of 12 January 1981, until such time as the
appropriate regulatory board determines that direct connection of industry to NPC is no longer necessary in
- a practicing lawyer in the Philippines and a Certified Public Accountant by profession. His key areas of practice
the franchise area of the specific utility or cooperative. Determination shall be based in the utility or
are Labor, Criminal, Civil and Taxation. He graduated as Cum Laude in New Era University back in 2012 and as
cooperatives meeting the standards of financial and technical capability with satisfactory guarantees of non-
Class 2018 Salutatorian in San Beda College Alabang - School of Law. He is also a proud member and finance
prejudice to industry to be set in consultation with NPC and relevant government agencies and reviewed
officer of Iglesia ni Cristo. View all posts by Atty. Aldrin Jose M. Cana, CPA
periodically by the regulatory board.”
Pursuant to such Cabinet Memorandum, respondent Cagayan Electric Power and Light, Co. (CEPALCO), grantee
of a legislative franchise to distribute electric power to the municipalities of Villanueva, Jasaan and Tagoloan, and BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM.
the city of Cagayan de Oro, all of the province of Misamis Oriental, filed with the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB)
a petition entitled “In Re: Petition for Implementation of Cabinet Policy Reforms in the Power Sector,” docketed as
ERB Case No. 89-430. The petition sought the “discontinuation of all existing direct supply of power by the
National Power Corporation (NPC, now NAPOCOR) within CEPALCO’s franchise area.”
The ERB issued a notice of public hearing, and furnished NAPOCOR and the Board of Investments copies of the
petition and directed them to submit their comments. After the hearing, the ERB rendered a decision granting the
petition.
NAPOCOR filed a motion for reconsideration which the ERB denied. Thereafter, NAPOCOR filed a petition for
review with the Court of Appeals, which the latter dismissed, holding that the motion for reconsideration filed by
NAPOCOR with the ERB was out of time, and therefore, the assailed decision became final and executory and
could no longer be the subject of a petition for review.
On a petition for review on certiorari, the Supreme Court affirmed the Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Judgment was entered on September 22, 1993, thus rendering final the decision of the ERB.
To implement the decision in ERB Case No. 89-430, CEPALCO wrote Philippine Sinter Corporation (PSC),
petitioner, and advised the latter of its desire “to have the power supply of PSC, directly taken from NPC
(NAPOCOR), disconnected, cut and transferred” to CEPALCO. PSC refused CEPALCO’s request, citing its
contract for power supply with NAPOCOR effective until July 26, 1996. To restrain the execution of the ERB
Decision, PSC and PIA filed a complaint for injunction against CEPALCO with the Regional Trial Court of
Cagayan de Oro City.
ISSUE: Whether injunction lies against the final and executory judgment of the ERB
https://legalopinion854088452.wordpress.com/2019/08/04/g-r-no-127371-april-25-2002-philippine-sinter-corporation-and-phividec-industrial-authority-p… 1/2 https://legalopinion854088452.wordpress.com/2019/08/04/g-r-no-127371-april-25-2002-philippine-sinter-corporation-and-phividec-industrial-authority-p… 2/2
