National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc.

(NASECORE), Federation of Village

Associations (FOVA), Federation of Las Pinas Village (Petitioners) vs.

Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) and Manila Electric Company (MERALCO)

Facts of the Case

By referring to Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA), Section 43 (f), Energy Regulatory
Commission (ERC) was able to change the conventional pricing of electricity sale known as Return on Rate
Base (RORB) method to Performance –Based Regulation (PBR) method. Meralco, a distribution utility (DU)
applied for an increase of its distribution rate under the PBR scheme docketed as ERC case no. 2009-057
RC (MAP2010 case) on 7 August 2009. All the petitioners including Engineer Robert F. Mallillin all filed
their petition for intervention to ERC against the application of Meralco.

Hearing ensued in ERC however, the petitioners do not attend any of the hearings conducted by ERC. On
14 December 2009, Meralco’s application in MAP2010 case was approved by ERC. Petitioner NASECORE
protests this claiming approval as premature, that there were still four (4) days before the expiration of
the period given to it to file its opposition to the formal offer of evidence of Meralco.

Engr. Malillin filed his Motion for Reconsideration in ERC while the petitioners appealed to the SC via Rule
65 with the urgent prayer for the issuance of Temporary Restraining Order or Status Quo Order.

Issue of the Case

Whether or not petitioners’ right to due process of law was violated when the ERC issued its order before
the expiration of the period granted to petitioners to file their comment.

Decision

No, where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is granted, there
is no denial of due process. It must not be overlooked that prior to the issuance of the assailed decision,
petitioner were given several opportunities to attend the hearings and to present all their pleadings and
evidence in the MAP2010 case. Petitioners voluntary failed to appear in most of those hearings.

Further, any defect in the observance of due process requirements is cured by the filing a Motion for
Reconsideration (MR). Although it is true that the ERC erred in prematurely issuing its Decision, its
subsequent act of ordering petitioners to file their comments on Mallillin’s MR cured this defect. We have
held that nay defect in the observance of due process requirements is cured by the filing of MR. Thus,
denial of due process cannot be invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on his MR.