CIVIL PROCEDURE

Tesorero, Diaz and Dureza v Mathay, Mejia, Board of Energy and Davao Light Inc.
Intervenor: Davao City Represented by Davao City Mayor Lopez

Nature:
PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI [R45] with a prayer for a restraining order
seeking the annulment of
the Decision of the Board of Energy (BOE) approving the application of Davao Light Inc. (DALIGHT) in the amount
of P282,024,877.40 as the fair and sound value of its assets, equipments and properties.
Facts:
1. Initially, DALIGHT, the authorized operator of electric light, heat and power service in the City of Davao, as
well as in the municipalities of Panabo, Sto. Tomas and Carmen, all in the province of Davao del Norte,
filed an application for the approval of the appraisal made by TAMSPHIL. After hearings, BOE issued an
Order to constitute a verification and inspection team.
a. This application was disapproved as TAMSPHIL was disqualified to make such appraisal and that
there were discrepancies going against it integrity
2. Two years after, DALIGHT filed another application for approval of the appraisal made by Asian Appraisal
Co., in the amount of P302,109,000.00
a. Petitioners Tesorero, Diaz and Dureza, residents of Davao City and are consumers of electricity
provided by DALIGHT, opposed this application
3. BOE constituted a team to conduct ocular examination/verification and in Dec. 6, 1983, approved the
amount of P282,024,877.40 as the fair and reasonable value of DALIGHT’s properties, assets and
equipment in the service. [DECISION]
a. Petitioners received a copy of the Decision on December 19, 1983
4. On January 19, 1984 (17 days) filed a Motion for Reconsideration
a. June 25, 1984 Order denied the MR
5. Apparently not having received the Order denying the MR, petitioners filed a Motion praying that a
hearing be conducted and/or a resolution be issued on their MR
a. BOE issued Oct 31 Order informing petitioners that their MR had long been denied and furnished
them a copy of the June 25 Order
6. Petitioners filed present R45 Petition in their own behalf and on behalf of the more or less 70,000
consumers of Davao City and its environs
a. Davao City filed a Petition for Intervention
7. All required pleadings having been filed, the First Division of the SC issued a Resolution giving due course
to the Petition
 a. Petitioners filed their memorandum instead of briefs; Respondent manifested that they be
allowed to adopt their respective comments as their briefs
Issues:
1. WON certiorari is the proper remedy in this case (NO BUT...read the ratio :p)
2. WON the properties included in the appraisal should be excluded
Held/Ratio:
1. Certiorari not the proper remedy but the Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, decided to disregard
technicalities and decide the case on the merits
a. Certiorari is not the proper remedy in this case as PD 1206 creating the BOE provides that its
decisions/orders are appealable to the Office of the President within 7 days after the notice or
receipt of the same. Subsequently, the Interim Rules Implementing Sec. 9 of BP129 provides that
final decisions, orders, awards or resolutions of all quasi-judicial bodies other than those
specifically excepted are reviewable by the IAC.
b. Furthermore, the Dec 6 Order of the BOE was already final and executory when petitioners filed
their MR
i. BUT “this Court in the broader interests of justice has in a number of cases given due
course to a petition for certiorari, although the proper remedy is appeal especially
where the equities warrant such recourse and considering that dismissals on
technicalities are viewed with disapproval.” (Emphasis supplied)
ii. Litigations should as much as possible be decided on the merits and not on mere
technicalities.
iii. “This case will not only affect herein petitioners who on some points have a good
cause of action but also the more or less 70,000 consumers in Davao City and its
environs.”
2.
a. It is well settled that this Court cannot substitute its judgment or discretion for that of the BOE
whose decisions and determinations particularly on matters of facts are entitled to great weight
and respect.
i. XPN: where the question litigated upon is a purely legal one
ii. While administrative determination on questions of law is persuasive on courts and
carries with it a strong presumption of correctness, nonetheless, the interpretation and
application of laws is the courts’ prerogative.
iii. the rule may and should be relaxed when its application may cause great and irreparable
damage
 b. In this case, the question is not the factual determination of the appraisal but the legality of it
(i.e. whether the nature of the property allows it to be appraised)
c. The Court ruled that the ff be excluded in the appraisal:
i. The value of the generators (by legal mandate, cannot be replaced anymore)
ii. The portion of the administration building being rented out and the value of the airplane
(not used in the operation)
iii. Permanent improvements
iv. Motor vehicles not used for power distribution
The December 6, 1983 decision of the Board of Energy is hereby MODIFIED by approving only the sum of
P122,175,433.40 as the fair and reasonable value of the properties, assets and equipment in service as of October
9, 1981 of DALIGHT.
Digested by: Rea A2015