G.R. No. 231679. April 28, 2021
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. BOHOL I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (BOHECO I), REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, ENGR. CARLOS B. ITABLE, AND NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION A…
INTING, J.:
dated December 16, 2011 of Branch 49, Regional Trial Court (RTC), City
of Tagbiliran, Bohol in Civil Case No. 5672 declaring Bohol I Electric
Cooperative (BOHECO) as the true and legal owner of the 5MVA Substation
Transformer 13.2/7.62/4.16 KV with SN-540808001 (subject transformer).
The Antecedents
The case stemmed from a complaint for recovery of possession and payment of back rentals filed by BOHECO against NAPOCOR.
NAPOCOR filed a third-party complaint against NEA as the third-party defendant.
The complaint alleged the following:
On September 13, 1979, BOHECO received a radio message from one Director Santos of NEA, stating:
“REUR AVAILABLE 5 MVA SUBSTATION TRANSFORMER PD REQUEST ALLOW
PERSONNEL OF NPC TO BORROW SAID TRANSFORMER FOR THEIR TONGONAN
GEOTHERMAL PLANT IN ORMOC PD ENDDIRECTOR SANTOS”[4]
Thereafter, NAPOCOR’s Engineer Virgilio Ungab (Engr. Ungab)
prepared a requisition voucher for “One (1) set of Substation
Transformer, 5MVA 15.2/7.62/4.16 KV complete with SN-540808001, dated
1972 and its accessories”[5]
which BOHECO’s Acting General Manager Melchor B. Bobis (GM Bobis)
approved. A handwritten note located at the lower left portion of the
voucher reads, “[s]ubject to NEA, NPC & BOHECO I negotiations.”[6]
On September 14, 1979, another requisition voucher was prepared
requesting for some materials or supplies for “NPC, Tongonan, Ormoc
City,” which GM Bobis likewise approved. BOHECO’s Warehouseman B.C.
Angcahan then issued a material charge ticket for the same
materials/supplies which Engr. Ungab received. The same persons issued
and received, respectively, another material charge ticket to which a
typewritten note reads, “[s]ubject to NEA, NPC & BOHECO I
Negotiation.”[7]
On
March 26, 1985, BOHECO’s Officer-in-Charge Engineer Carlos B. Itable
(Engr. Itable) wrote a letter to Mr. Romeo A. Perlado (Mr. Perlado),
NAPOCOR’s Regional Manager for the Visayas Utility Operations, reminding
him about the subject transformer and notifying him that there was
nothing in BOHECO’s records showing of any agreement between NEA and
NAPOCOR regarding the subject transformer. He also asked for
possible rental payment as compensation for the depreciation of the
subject transformer’s value. On April 20, 1985, BOHECO sent a telegram
to Mr. Perlado asking for copies of all documents pertinent to NEA and
NAPOCOR’s agreement concerning the replacement of the latter’s 5MVA
substation transformer and reiterating its request for rental payment.
The request fell on deaf ears. Hence, BOHECO’s complaint.[8]
In its answer, NAPOCOR averred the following:
NAPOCOR’s possession of the subject transformer was legitimate from the
very beginning as it was NEA’s replacement of its transformer that was
withdrawn from NAPOCOR’s Tongonan power plant in Leyte. It relied on
NEA’s authority to validly and legally transfer ownership and possession
of the subject transformer without obligations or conditions on its
part. BOHECO did not make any objection or protest when the subject
transformer was pulled out from its office in 1981.[9]
NAPOCOR had been in open, notorious, and uninterrupted possession of
the subject transformer. As its defense, it stressed that BOHECO’s right
to enforce its claim had already prescribed; and that the complaint
failed to comply with the Court’s Administrative Circular No. 04-94[10] regarding the additional requirements concerning the filing of petitions in the Supreme Court and the CA.[11]
Thereafter, NAPOCOR filed a motion for leave to file third-party
complaint against NEA alleging that it acquired possession of the
subject transformer through the latter’s directives and maintained that
the subject transformer was a replacement of its own transformer which
was withdrawn by NEA.[12]
BOHECO, in its answer to the affirmative defense, averred that NAPOCOR
merely borrowed the subject transformer; that whatever contract NAPOCOR
had with NEA, it was not a party to it; and that while NAPOCOR came into
possession of the subject transformer lawfully, its possession,
however, became adversarial after Antonio Corpuz, NAPOCOR’s
Vice-President, insisted that the subject transformer was swapped for
NAPOCOR’s own 3MVA substation transformer.
NEA, in its answer to the third-party complaint alleged the following:
The parties’ cause of action had already prescribed and barred by
laches. NEA stressed that BOHECO and NAPOCOR took approximately 16 years
before filing their respective complaints; that recovery of possession
of movable personal property acquired in good faith prescribes in four
years; and if in bad faith, the action prescribes in eight years.
NAPOCOR had no cause of action against it for failure to exhaust all
administrative remedies mandated by Presidential Decree No. (PD) 242,[13]
which prescribes the procedure for administrative settlement of
disputes, claims, and controversies between and among government
offices, including government-owned and -controlled corporations.[14]
On June 24, 1996, the RTC found merit in NEA’s motion to dismiss the
third-party complaint. Accordingly, the Third-party Complaint was
dismissed. However, on October 15, 1996, upon NAPOCOR’s motion for
reconsideration, the RTC granted NAPOCOR’s motion on the ground that NEA
failed to file an opposition to NAPOCOR’s amended motion for
reconsideration.[15]
Trial on the merits ensued.
Evidence for BOHECO
Engr. Itable’s testimony is as follows:
BOHECO owns
the subject transformer, which is presently in the possession of
NAPOCOR. It was by reason of a radio message sent by NEA directing
BOHECO to accommodate NAPOCOR’s request to borrow the subject
transformer that it came to the possession of NAPOCOR. Pertinent
documents like requisition vouchers and material charge tickets were
prepared, approved, and signed by the concerned officials or
representatives.[16]
BOHECO acquired the subject transformer at the price of P712,221.38. At
the time the subject transformer was released to NAPOCOR, BOHECO was
still paying the monthly amortizations to NEA. At present, the subject
transformer would already cost P3 to 4 Million.[17]
It was Engr. Ungab of NAPOCOR who pulled out the subject transformer from BOHECO’s office on September 18, 1979.
On March 26, 1985, Engr. Itable wrote a letter addressed to NAPOCOR
asking rental payment for the use of the subject transformer. It was
followed by a telegram dated April 22, 1985, this time addressed to
NAPOCOR and NEA, asking for a copy of the agreement between the two
regarding the subject transformer, but to no avail.[18]
On April 29, 1985, Engr. Itable wrote a letter to NEA’s Cooperative
Administrator, Gen. Pedro G. Dumol. On June 15, 1987, he wrote another
letter addressed to Engr. Teodulo J. Pinlac of NAPOCOR in Tagbilaran
City. He likewise sent a letter to the General Manager of LEYECO V in
Ormoc City, who received the subject transformer. On January 21, 1991,
he wrote a response letter to the letter of NAPOCOR’s Vice-President. On
July 4, 1994, he wrote a letter to NAPOCOR’s Vice-President for the
Visayas requesting for a replacement of the subject transformer as there
were areas in Bohol that were encountering low voltage; however, the
request was denied.[19]
In his recollection of events, Engr. Itable said that BOHECO passed
Resolution No. 13, Series of 1986, addressed to NEA, seeking assistance
for the recovery of the subject transformer. Then, on April 4, 1987,
another board resolution was passed demanding from NAPOCOR the return of
the subject transformer. Likewise, demands for payment of rental in the
amount of P10,000.00 per month were made.[20]
Evidence for NAPOCOR
NAPOCOR presented Engr. Ungab, Engr. Alfredo Tumagan (Engr. Tumagan), and Engr. Ernesto Oreiro[21] (Engr. Oreiro).
In his testimony, Engr. Ungab stated that he was instructed to pull out
the subject transformer from BOHECO and to ship it to Tongonan, Ormoc
City. BOHECO did not react to the pulling out of the subject transformer
when it was told that the order came from the “higher-ups.” The reason
for the palling out of the subject transformer was to save on the cost
of shipping; that instead of shipping BOHECO’s transformer to Masbate,
it was NAPOCOR’s transformer that was shipped to Masbate and BOHECO’s
transformer was the one shipped to Tongonan. He insisted that NAPOCOR
has its own supply of transformers that makes it unnecessary to borrow
transformers from BOHECO. He clarified that Masbate Electric Cooperative
(MASELCO) and BOHECO are separate and distinct cooperatives, but both
are under NEA.[22]
Engr. Tumagan corroborated Engr. Ungab’s testimony.
Further, Engr. Oreiro testified that he did not see any document
relating to the subject transformer, but knows only of the verbal
instructions coming from the “higher-ups.” NAPOCOR does not borrow,
lease, or has ever borrowed or leased any equipment in the construction
or operation of its power plant because NAPOCOR, in itself, installs
transformers. He was involved in the installation of the subject
transformer, but he was not in Bohol to witness its pulling out and
shipment. The subject transformer is still in Tongonan and is still
operational.[23]
Sometime in 1999, BOHECO asked NAPOCOR for rental payment for the use of
the subject transformer, but the latter did not pay because of the
internal agreement entered into by and between NAPOCOR and NEA to swap
NAPOCOR’s 3MVA transformer with BOHECO’s 5MVA transformer. He confirmed
that a 5MVA transformer is valued more than a 3MVA transformer; that a
5MVA transformer would roughly cost around P100,000.00, but as to its
present value, he could not give an estimate because he was only
involved in the operation and maintenance of the plant; and that he was
not familiar with the charge sheet or receipt where the value of the
5MVA transformer was indicated.[24]
Evidence for NEA
NEA presented BOHECO’s witness, Engr. Oreiro as its hostile
witness to prove that contrary to his testimony, there was no swapping
of transformers that happened between BOHECO and NAPOCOR. As a hostile
witness, he reiterated his statement that he only assisted in the
installation of the subject transformer; neither did he receive the
subject transformer when it arrived in Tongonan. Moreover, he confirmed
that the transfer of the subject transformer was upon the instruction of
his plant manager in BOHECO, who, on other other hand, received an
instruction from NAPOCOR’s Regional Office in Cebu.[25]
Ruling of the RTC
On December 16, 2011, the RTC rendered a Decision[26]
in favor of BOHECO. It declared that BOHECO was entitled to the
restoration of the subject transformer which was unlawfully withheld
from it. It also ordered the payment of back rentals in arrears for the
use of the subject transformer.
The fallo of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
in the instant case, BOHECO, as the true and legal owner of the 5MVA
“Substation Transformer 13.2/7.62/4.16 KV with SN-540808001;
the National Power Corporation (NPC), to return forthwith to BOHECO,
possession, custody and control of the above-adverted 5MVA Substation
Transformer 13.2/7.62/4.16 KV with SN-540808001, which it has illegally
retained;
plaintiff, the NPC and the third-party defendant, the National
Electrification Administration (NEA) to pay BOHECO, jointly and
severally, the sum of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P450,000.00),
representing the sought (sic) for back rentals and attorney’s fees
equivalent to 20% of the stated amount and the costs of the suit.All other claims are hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[27]
Both NAPOCOR and NEA appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
On April 28, 2017, the CA rendered the assailed Decision[28] denying the appeal of NAPOCOR, but granting the appeal of NEA.
The CA affirmed the RTC Decision with modification in that it deleted
the award of attorney’s fees. It further found NAPOCOR as the only
liable party for the payment of rentals in arrears reckoned from the
time the subject transformer was pulled out from BOHECO’s office until
NAPOCOR surrenders it to BOHECO. It furthermore imposed legal interest
on NAPOCOR’s obligation following the ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, et al.[29] (Nacar).
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, NAPOCOR’s appeal is DENIED and NEA’s appeal is
GRANTED. The Decision dated 16 De ember 2011 of the Regional Trial
Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 49, City of Tagbilaran, in
Civil Case No. 5672, is hereby AFFIRMED with modification deleting the
award of attorney’s fees; finding only the National Power Corporation
(NAPOCOR) liable for payment of rentals-in-arrears from the time it
pulled-out the subject substation transformer until it surrenders the
same to BOHECO; and imposing legal interest on NAPOCOR’s obligation. In
view of the foregoing:
appoint, with dispatch, three (3) commissioners for the purpose of
determining the reasonable and fair rent on the subject substation
transformer.SO ORDERED.[30]
Hence, the instant petition.
NAPOCOR raises a sole ground for consideration of the Court, to wit:
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NPC ALONE IS LIABLE
FOR PAYMENT OF RENTALS-IN-ARREARS TO BOHECO UN THE GROUND THAT NEA
ALLEGEDLY DID NOT EVEN BENEFIT FROM THE USE OF THE SUBJECT SUBSTATION
TRANSFORMER CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT AND THE ADMISSION
OF BOHECO ITSELF, THAT BOTH NPC AND NEA BENEFIT[T]ED FROM THE USE OF
THE SUBSTATION TRANSFORMER [31]
The Petition
NAPOCOR maintains that the CA erred in holding it solely liable for payment of rentals in arrears to BOHECO.[32]
It argues that based on the evidence presented, it appears that its
possession of the subject transformer is legitimate from the very
beginning because it was upon NEA’s directive that it pulled out the
subject transformer from BOHECO as a replacement of its 3MVA
transformer, which was transferred to MASELCO.[33] NAPOCOR stresses the full authority of NEA over all electric cooperatives pursuant to PD 269[34] to justify its possession and exercise of control over the subject transformer.[35]
On the question of what happened to the subject transformer of BOHECO, Engr. Tumagan testified in this manner:
x x x “Because there was a plan of National Electrification
Administration (NEA) to transfer the 5MVA to Masbate. But they agreed
that in order to lessen the expenses of the National Electrification
Administration (NEA), National Power Corporation (NPC) will be the one
to get the transformer from Bohol to Leyte. And the transformer of NPC
at Leyte will be brought to Masbate in order to lessen the expenses
because from Leyte is nearer to Masbate compared to Bohol.”[36]
NAPOCOR asserts that it would not have taken possession of the subject transformer had there been no order from NEA.[37]
Thus, as a possessor in good faith, NAPOCOR insists that it is entitled
to all the fruits of the subject property and is not under obligation
to pay any rentals thereof.[38]
Further, NAPOCOR believes that NEA benefitted from the use of the
subject transformer because per testimony of Engr. Itable, BOHECO
continued to pay the monthly amortizations to NEA even after NAPOCOR
already pulled out the subject transformer from BOHECO. Hence, by
BOHECO’s continued payment to NEA, the latter gained benefits from the
subject transformer even if it was in the possession of NAPOCOR.[39]
BOHECO’s Comment
BOHECO argues that the CA erred in holding NAPOCOR as solely
liable for the payment of rentals in arrears. BOHECO asserts that the
RTC was correct when it declared that NAPOCOR and NEA were jointly
liable for payment of reasonable rentals of the subject transformer
because both gained benefits from the use of the subject
transformer—NAPOCOR has the subject transformer under its possession and
is exercising dominion over it; while NEA was continuously accepting
payments for the subject transformer from BOHECO even after it was
pulled out from the latter’s office and transferred to NAPOCOR in Leyte.[40]
NEA’s Comment/Opposition
NEA insists on the following: NAPOCOR presented no evidence to
prove that NEA instructed it to take the subject transformer from
BOHECO’s office.[41] The only
proof NAPOCOR presented was a handwritten marginal note in the
requisition voucher stating “subject to NEA, NPC, and BOHECO I
Negotiations[42] without bearing a signature coming from NEA’s representative.[43] The phrase “to negotiate” means that there is no agreement that has been reached yet;[44] and that pending negotiation, there is no agreement or decision that exists to bind the parties.[45]
NEA maintains that Engr. Tumagan of NAPOCOR testified that there was
only a plan to transfer the subject transformer from BOHECO to NAPOCOR.[46]
NEA further argues that the testimonies made by NAPOCOR’s witnesses
were made true by BOHECO’s letter dated March 26, 1985 addressed to Mr.
Perlado, who was then Regional Manager of Visayas Utility Operations of
NAPOCOR which reads, “since September 1979 when it was withdrawn by
Engr. Virgilio Ungab for shipment to Tongonan, Leyte geothermal plant
and we cannot find in our record of any written conditions between the
[NPC] and the [NEA] regarding its transfer x x x.”[47]
Hence, NEA maintains that NAPOCOR’s claim is just a bare allegation not supported by evidence or by law.[48]
NAPOCOR’s Consolidated Reply
NAPOCOR reiterates, among others, the RTC’s findings that it
acquired custody, control, and possession of the subject transformer by
virtue of NEA’s directive.[49] Thus, it is wrong for the CA to rule that the payment of the back rentals was NAPOCOR’s sole liability.[50]
Further, NAPOCOR claims that NEA cannot simply escape liability by
denying participation in the transaction on the ground that there is no
written document to prove its claims.[51]
Issue
Did the CA err in holding NAPOCOR solely liable for the
payment of rentals in arrears to BOHECO on the ground that NEA did not
benefit from the use of the subject transformer?
The Court’s Ruling
The Court denies the petition.
At the outset, there is
no more question as to which entity owns the subject transformer. Both
the RTC and the CA aptly ruled that BOHECO owns it. It is likewise
beyond question that the possession and control of the subject
transformer was transferred to NAPOCOR. The manner by which the subject
transformer was transferred to the latter is established by reason of a
radio message sent to and received by the General Manager of BOHECO from
NEA’s Director, which reads:
“REUR AVAILABLE 5MVA SUBSTATION TRANSFORMER PD REQUEST ALLOW
PERSONNEL OF NPC TO BORROW SAID TRANSFORMER FOR THEIR TONGONAN
GEOTHERMAL PLANT IN ORMOC PD ENDDIRECTOR SANTOS”[52]
Further, the transfer of the subject transformer to NAPOCOR does
not mean that its ownership was likewise transferred to NAPOCOR.
Notably, there is a complete absence of records that will support
NAPOCOR’s allegation that ownership over the subject transformer was
also transferred in its favor. Thus, the Court quotes with approval the
finding of the CA, to wit:
It is beyond dispute that plaintiff BOHECO, the owner of the
5MVA Substation Transformer 13.2/7.62/4.16 KV with SN-540808001, subject
of the instant case, was since 1979 been deprived of custody, control
and possession of subject transformer. It is not disputed further,
having judicially admitted such fact, that the subject transformer owned
by BOHECO, is within the custody, control and possession of third-party
plaintiff, the NPC installed as its Tongonan Geothermal Plant in Ormoc
for the Leyte-Samar Grid.[53]
Verily, the action for recovery of possession and for payment of
back rentals against NAPOCOR is proper. Following the declaration that
the ownership of the subject transformer belongs and still remains with
BOHECO, both the CA and the RTC are correct in directing NAPOCOR to
surrender the possession, custody, and control of the subject
transformer to BOHECO.
Accordingly, BOHECO is entitled to the
payment of rentals-in-arrears from the time the subject transformer was
pulled out from its premises until NAPOCOR surrenders it to the former.
Who then is liable for the payment of rentals in arrears?
The RTC declared that NAPOCOR and NEA should pay BOHECO, jointly and
severally, the sum of P450,000.00 representing the back rentals and
attorney’s fees equivalent to 20% of the stated amount.[54]
On appeal, the CA ruled that only NAPOCOR is liable.
NAPOCOR insists that NEA should be solely liable reiterating
its claim that its possession of the subject transformer is legitimate
from the very beginning as it was transferred to its possession and
control upon NEA’s instruction;[55]
that it acted in good faith following the instruction from NEA to get
the subject transformer of BOHECO in exchange for NAPOCOR’s own 3MVA
transformer which, on the other hand, was shipped to MASELCO.[56]
The Court finds no merit in NAPOCOR’s assertions.
There is nothing in the records that would show any written
agreement between NAPOCOR and NEA regarding the transfer of the
ownership of the subject transformer to NAPOCOR.
Well settled is the rule that there is solidary liability only
when the obligation expressly so states, or when the obligation
requires solidarity.[57] In
the case, as correctly found by the CA, other than NEA’s radio message
sent to BOHECO directing the transfer of the subject transformer to
NAPOCOR, there are no other pieces of evidence presented to prove that
NEA bound itself with the latter to pay BOHECO for the use of the
subject transformer.[58]
The Court likewise adheres to the findings of the CA that the RTC erred
in concluding that NEA also benefitted from the use of the subject
transformer.[59] The fact that
BOHECO was still paying for the monthly amortizations on the subject
transformer to NEA, even after BOHECO was deprived of possession
thereof, does not mean that NEA also benefitted from the use of subject
transformer to make it solidarily liable with NAPOCOR. Further, BOHECO’s
continuous payment of the monthly amortizations to NEA, after
possession of the subject transformer was transferred to NAPOCOR, only
proves that BOHECO retained ownership of the subject transformer.
Simply put by the CA, “neither is there any proof to show that NEA had, at one time or another gained possession of the subject transformer.”[60]
As to the fair and reasonable amount of rental, the Court adopts the
findings of the CA that the RTC awarded to BOHECO back rentals in the
amount as prayed for by the latter without even making any findings
thereon.[61]
Basic
is the rule that to recover actual damages, not only must the amount of
loss be capable of proof; it must also be actually proven with a
reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or the
best evidence obtainable.[62] Thus, the findings of the CA:
More importantly, BOHECO omitted to present any other evidence
at all on what it considers to be fair rental value by way of
testimonies of persons who are in the power business/industry to show
how much the rent is being charged on 5MVA substation transformers, with
the same specifications as the subject substation transformer, and that
it is the amount prevailing in the power industry. This way, the courts
will be aided in arriving with reasonable certainty at the amount of
rents which BOHECO failed to earn.“In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must
establish his case by preponderance of evidence. He who alleges a fact
has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.”
Hence, the amount awarded to BOHECO, as payment for rentals, is deleted,
and accordingly, we remand the case to the RTC to determine, with aid
of court-appointed commissioners, the fair rental value on the subject
transformer, from the time it was pulled-out from BOHECO’s office until
NAPOCOR surrenders it to BOHECO.Worth mentioning is that the nature of the funds for
disbursement is public. As such, the amount of rental must be
ascertained with absolute certainty and supported by factual and legal
bases.[63]
In all, the Court finds that the CA did not err in holding NAPOCOR
solely liable for the payment of rentals in arrears to BOHECO on the
ground that it was the only one that benefitted from the use of the
subject transformer.
Further, the CA is correct in deleting the award of attorney’s
fees for failure of the RTC to state the grounds to warrant its award
in BOHECO’s favor. Settled is the rule that the lower court must state
the factual, legal, or equitable justification for the award of
attorney’s fees;[64] that the grant thereof cannot be stated in the dispositive portion of the decision without stating the reasons therefor.[65]
In fact, the CA is precluded from supplementing the bases for the award
of attorney’s fees when the lower court failed to provide a discussion
of the grounds or reasons for the award thereof in its decision.[66]
As to the imposition of the legal interest, the CA correctly applied the ruling in Nacar, thus:
Applying the aforestated ruling, NAPOCOR is, therefore, liable for payment of interest, at twelve percent (12%) per annum
computed from March 26, 1985 (date of extrajudicial demand for payment
of rentals-in-arrears and rentals due in the interim until surrender of
the subject substation transformer), until June 30, 2013, and from July
1, 2013, six percent (6%) shall be imposed, until finality of this
judgment. Furthermore, the total obligation shall, itself, earn interest
at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from [sic] finality of judgment until full payment thereof.[67]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 28, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CV. No. 04344 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen (Chairperson), Hernando, Delos Santos, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 11-33.
[2] Id. at 39-57;
penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles with Associate Justices
Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.
[3] Id. at 58-63; penned by Presiding Judge Fernando G. Fuentes III.
[4] Id. at 41.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 41-42.
[9] Id. at 42
[10] Entitled,
“Additional Requisites for Civil Complaints, Petitions and other
Initiatory Pleadings Filed in all Courts and Agencies, other than the
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, to Prevent Forum Shopping or
Multiple Filing of such Pleadings,” approved on February 8, 1994.
[11] Rollo, p. 42.
[12] Id.
[13] Entitled,
“Prescribing the Procedure for Administrative Settlement or Adjudication
of Disputes, Claims and Controversies Between or Among Government
Offices, Agencies and Instrumentalities, including Government-owned or
controlled Corporations, and For Other Purposes,” approved on July 9,
1973.
[14] Rollo, pp. 42-43.
[15] Id. at 43.
[16] Id. at 43-44.
[17] Id. at 44.
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] Spelled as Oriero in some parts of the rollo.
[22] Rollo, pp. 44-45.
[23] Id. at 45.
[24] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] Id. at 58-63.
[27] Id. at 62-63.
[28] Id. at 39-57.
[29] 716 Phil. 267 (2013).
[30] Id. at 56-57.
[31] Id. at 21.
[32] Id. at 23.
[33] Id. at 25.
[34] Entitled, “Creating
the “National Electrification Administration” as a Corporation,
Prescribing its Powers and Activities, Appropriating the Necessary Funds
therefor and Declaring a National Policy Objective for the Total
Electrification of the Philippines on an Area Coverage Service Basis,
the Organization, Promotion and Development of Electric Cooperatives to
Attain the said Objective, Prescribing Terms and Conditions for their
Operations, The Repeal of Republic Act No. 6038, and For Other
Purposes,” approved on August 6, 1973.
[35] Rollo, p. 26.
[36] Id. at 27-28.
[37] Id., at 28.
[38] Id.
[39] Id.
[40] As culled from the
Comment (On the Petition for Review on Certiorari Dated July 3, 2017)
dated October 12, 2017 of Bohol I Electric Cooperative, Inc., id. at 79.
[41] As culled from the
Comment/Opposition (On NPC’s Petition for Review on Certiorari) dated
October 6, 2017 of National Electrification Administration, id. at 68.
[42] Id.
[43] Id.
[44] Id. at 69.
[45] Id. at 69.
[46] Id.
[47] Id. at 70.
[48] Id.
[49] As culled from the Consolidated Reply dated May 11, 2018 of National Power Corporation, id. at 89.
[50] Id. at 90.
[51] Id. at 92.
[52] Id. at 41.
[53] Id. at 60.
[54] Id at 62-63.
[55] Id. at 25.
[56] Id. at 26-27.
[57] Keihin-Everett Forwarding Co., Inc. v. Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 212107, January 28, 2019.
[58] Rollo, p. 52.
[59] Id. at 52-53.
[60] Id. at 53.
[61] Id.
[62] Manila Electric Company v. T.E.A.M. Electronics Corp., 564 Phil. 639, 656 (2007), citing Quisumbing v. Manila Electric Company, 429 Phil. 727, 747 (2000).
[63] Rollo, pp. 53-54.
[64] Marilag v. Martinez, 764 Phil. 576 (2015), citing S.C. Megaworld Construction and Development Corporation v. Parada, 717 Phil. 752 (2013).
[65] Id.
[66] Id.
[67] Rollo, p. 56.