538 Phil. 646
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
After a judicious evaluation of the records of the case, the Board finds the herein application of Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. for approval of the sound value appraisal of its properties and equipment in service as of December 14, 1984, to be meritorious.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Board hereby approves the revaluation and appraisal, as modified herein, of the property and equipment of Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. with a total cost of reproduction new of P845,052,967.27 and a total sound value of P420,606,811.82, as herein below shown:
Property Plant and Equipment | 1984 Reproduction Cost New | 1984 Sound Value | |||||
| | | |||||
Land | P 10,630,900.00 | P 10,630,900.00 | |||||
Buildings | 19,782,100.00 | 13,528,500.00 | |||||
Other Land Improvements | 4,601,500.00 | ||||||
| 6,123,700.00 | ||||||
| |||||||
Machinery and Equipment: | |||||||
Power Plant | 431,350,000.00 | 175,319,000.00 | |||||
Control Room | 1,483,800.00 | 668,000.00 | |||||
Machine Shop | 971,900.00 | 267,500.00 | |||||
Electrical Laboratory Equipment | 310,300.00 | 92,800.00 | |||||
Yard and Outside | 8,899,400.00 | 4,122,800.00 | |||||
Electric Data Processing Equipment | 7,220,380.00 | 5,054,000.00 | |||||
Desilting Equipment | 685,000.00 | 240,000.00 | |||||
Power Plant Laboratory Equipment | 397,000.00 | 260,700.00 | |||||
Electrical System Equipment | 297,700.00 | 181,600.00 | |||||
Power Plant Electrical Equipment | 151,100.00 | 79,100.00 | |||||
Injector Room Equipment | 161,300.00 | 79,100.00 | |||||
Injector Room Equipment | 161,300.00 | 69,100.00 | |||||
Pollution Control Equipment | 290,000.00 | 174,000.00 | |||||
Power Plant Miscellaneous Equipment | 11,945,600.00 | 5,538,300.00 | |||||
Fire Fighting Equipment | 257,000.00 | 180,000.00 | |||||
Radio Communication Equipment | 2,927,000.00 | 1,902,500.00 | |||||
Ponciano Reyes Repair Equipment | 197,600.00 | 76,500.00 | |||||
| | | |||||
Electrical Equipment: | | | |||||
Substations | 76,150,000.00 | 51,412,000.00 | |||||
Transmissions and Distribution Poles Transformers | 168,007,000.00 | 92,002,000.00 | |||||
Overhead Transmission and Distribution Line | 86,865,000.00 | 46,157,000.00 | |||||
Consumer Meters | 94,592,000.00 | 42,693,000.00 | |||||
| | | |||||
Transportation Equipment | 2,732,000.00 | 2,364,000.00 | |||||
T O T A L | P932,427,780.00 | P457,614,800.00 | |||||
| 0 | ||||||
Less: | |||||||
Values of Property and Equipment which were either not used by the Company on its operation, not existing, or used by other Companies | | | |||||
Buildings | P3,590,597.00 | P2,615,252.00 | |||||
Other Land Improvements | 19,500.00 | 14,600.00 | |||||
Machinery and Equipment | 95,000,942.00 | 36,775,197.00 | |||||
Electrical Equipment | 6,998,481.00 | 3,270,519.00 | |||||
Transportation Equipment | 275,000.00 | 275,000.00 | |||||
TOTAL | P105,884,520.00 | P42,950,568.00 | |||||
| 0 | 0 | |||||
| |||||||
TOTAL | P826,543,260.00 | P414,664,232.00 | |||||
| 0 | ||||||
| | | |||||
Add: | | | |||||
Value of assets which are not included in the appraisal report of 1984 but listed as assets of Davao Light & Power Company on its Books | P18,509,707.27 | P5,942,579.82 | |||||
| | | |||||
TOTAL VALUE OF ASSETS APPROVED | P845,052,967.27 | P420,606,811.82 |
This Decision shall take effect on the date hereof.On 17 January 1995, respondents filed a petition before the ERB praying for the declaration of nullity of its 18 September 1989 Decision.[7] Respondents argued that said ERB decision was void ab initio because included therein were certain generators which were ordered excluded by this Court in the computation of the sound value appraisal of petitioner's properties, assets, and equipment in our decision in G.R. No. 69592.[8]
SO ORDERED.
Pasig, Metro Manila, September 18, 1989.[6]
It is crystal clear, therefore, that since the Supreme Court has finally decided the case with FINALITY disapproving the appraisals made bloating the value of the properties, assets and equipment of Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. thus weighed down the profit to 12% as mandated by law, had already been reduced to P112,175,433.40, the excess from the collections made by Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. be now ordered returned to the more than 70,000 different customers according to the bracket of excess payments made and tendered by each customer since 1981.On 8 June 1992, the ERB granted the petition for the institution of refund proceedings.[16] Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of this decision was denied by the ERB on 1 July 1992 and thereafter, it filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals.[17] On 22 July 1996, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision stating, among other things, the following:
It is now therefore the most opportune and proper time that the Energy Regulatory Board, in observing and adhering to the spirit and mandate of the Decision of the Supreme Court to institute a Refund Proceedings in order that all the excess payments made by the more than 70,000 electric customers/consumers in Davao City, Panabo, Carmen, Sto. Tomas, all of Davao Province, be returned to said consumers/customers beginning the year 1981; or, in the alternative, to convert the total excess payments collected from the aforesale [sic] electric consumers/customers be credited as their equity participation with Davao Light & Power Co., Inc., as a lumpsum reimbursement will become a massive financial drain of the financial standing of Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. and which would, in effect, compel them to render poor service to the public.
It is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Chairman of the Energy Regulatory Board that the institution of the Refund Proceedings be acted upon in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.[15]
Notwithstanding the foregoing, We still recognize private respondents' right to a refund inasmuch as the rates charged them, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tesorero v. Mathay, were excessive.Petitioner then filed a Motion for Clarification/Reconsideration before the Court of Appeals which was however disregarded by the appellate court in its resolution of 30 October 1996. Subsequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Review before this Court but later had it withdrawn.[19]
It is noteworthy that in Tesorero, et al. v. Mathay, 185 SCRA 124, 132-133, the Supreme Court modified the decision of the then Board of Energy dated December 6, 1983 by excluding certain properties of DALIGHT as not being used in the generation and distribution electricity and approved only the sum of P122,175,433.40 as the fair and reasonable value of DALIGHT's properties, assets and equipment in service as of October 9, 1981. Such exclusion must necessarily reduce the sound value of petitioner's allowable rate base and ultimately result in the reduction of the rate of return, which is limited by law to twelve percent (12%) of the rate base. While it cannot be disclaimed that petitioner's rates were fixed by the then Board of Energy (BOE) (now the Energy Regulatory Board) in prior orders, respondent ERB, however, is not without authority to order refund proceedings in the light of the ruling in the aforecited Tesorero case. Such refund proceedings, however, must take into account the overriding principle of fairness which stems from the all-important fact that public utilities such as the petitioner DALIGHT make their financial plans, projections and investments on the basis of the expected revenues. Respondent ERB must therefore consider such facts and circumstances as would minimize the unsettling effect upon the petitioner of having to make necessary reparation or refund revenues which it had already collected on the basis of rates previously approved by the Board.
x x x x
Under the circumstances, the ERB could make the necessary adjustments in the subsequent rates to be charged by DALIGHT in consideration of the revaluation of DALIGHT's assets and the excess payments it received to be reckoned from the date when private respondents first raised their opposition to such valuation on January 19, 1984 when they filed their Motion for Reconsideration of the December 6, 1983 decision of the then BOE.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs.[18]
- Petitioners (respondents herein) are in need of the following specifications from the annual books of accounts of respondent Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. in the items stated hereunder:
a. Breakdown of credits to fire, typhoon, calamity, insurance reserve;Petitioner opposed this motion "insofar as the period (1984 to 1996) is concerned"[21] as the refund proceedings should be limited from 19 January 1984 to 14 December 1984.[22]
b. Rentals collected from telephone and other companies for rent of electric posts;
c. Details of annual expenditures for:c-1. Legal fees
c-2. Representations
c-3. Donations
d. Interest earned on customers' deposits;
e. Interest paid on loan secured by Dalight from other sources;
f. Interests paid on customers' deposits;
g. Interest earned on deposit of Dalight funds;
h. Realty taxes paid for all Generators of Dalight.[20]
WHEREFORE, finding petitioners' Francisco P. Tesorero and Antonio G. Diaz's motion to be meritorious, the same is hereby granted with modification. Accordingly, applicant is hereby directed to furnish the Board with the documents above stated during the period from January 19, 1984 to December 14, 1984, within five (5) days from receipt hereof.[23]Petitioner moved to have the aforesaid order reconsidered on the ground that the data sought by respondents were irrelevant to the refund proceedings. This was opposed by respondents who claimed that the 26 February 1998 order of the ERB clearly stated that the period covered shall be from 19 January 1984 to 18 September 1989 and not from 19 January 1984 to 14 December 1984.[24] They also argued that approval of the valuation of petitioner's properties, assets, and equipment in use as of 14 December 1984 took effect on the date of its promulgation on 18 September 1989 as stated in the dispositive portion of the ERB decision.[25]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is DENIED and is accordingly DISMISSED for lack of merit.[30]In the meantime, respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals to annul the 4 June 1998 and 4 October 1998 Orders of the ERB which allegedly reduced the refund period from 19 January 1984 to 14 December 1984 instead of 19 January 1984 to 18 September 1989.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED and the Orders dated June 4, 1998 and October 4, 1998 of the public respondent is (sic) hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Public respondent is hereby ordered to regard September 18, 1989 as the effective cut-off date of the period for computing petitioners' (respondents herein) refund.[31]Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was ordered denied by the Court of Appeals on 27 September 2001.[32] Hence, the present recourse imputing the following errors on the Court of Appeals:
In fine, the present petition for review poses the following questions: when is the effective date of the sound value appraisal of petitioner's properties, assets, and equipment in service as of a particular date for the purpose of rate fixing; and second, which copy of the 26 February 1998 order of the ERB should prevail.I
The Ninth Division of the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the effective date of the sound value appraisal of DLPC's properties, assets, and equipment in service as of 14 December 1984 is on 18 September 1989, the date when the ERB rendered its decision approving the same, in complete disregard of existing laws and jurisprudence on the determination of the rate base of a power utility firm for the purpose of rate fixing.[33]II
The Ninth Division of the Court of Appeals violated elementary norms in the provision of proof of official records and in the performance of official duty when it relied on an alleged copy of the 26 February 1998 ERB Order, as attached by respondents in their petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 50771, despite the presentation of the original of the order on file with the ERB, through a certified true copy thereof, and the explicit manifestation of the issuing authority itself, the ERB, that the same is not the order it issued.[34]III
The Court of Appeals, by giving due course to and ruling on the petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 50771, sanctioned forum shopping by the respondents who had earlier filed another proceeding involving the same factual issue, i.e., the contents of the ERB's 26 February 1998 Order.[35]
(a) where there is ambiguity or uncertainty, the body of the opinion may be referred to for purposes of construing the judgment because the dispositive part of a decision must find support from the decision's ratio decidendi;A reading of the whole 18 September 1989 decision of the ERB reveals that it refers to the estimated values of petitioner's properties as of 14 December 1984 and that the factors used by the independent appraiser in the valuation were those existing at the time they conducted the appraisal and not when the ERB rendered its decision a few years after, thus:
(b) where extensive and explicit discussion and settlement of the issue is found in the body of the decision.[46]
At the February 22 & 23, 1988 hearings, applicant presented as its final witness, Engr. Elias Mañago, a licensed Mechanical Engineer and Project Manager of Asian Appraisal Co., Inc. who testified on the actual valuation of the machineries and equipment, electrical and transportation equipment of applicant Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. as of December 14, 1984. Witness Mañago explained that in determining the cost of reproduction new [sic], they used either the market data approach or the cost approach. x x x.Indeed, it is in reading the whole decision, and not just the dispositive portion alone, that one arrives at the true meaning of any of its part.[48]
x x x x
At the August 9, 1988 hearing, applicant presented its fourth witness, Mr. Efren S. Ocampo, Actg. Head, Real Estate Division of the Asian Appraisal Co., Inc. who testified on the valuation of applicant's lands, buildings and other land improvements as of December 14, 1984. x x x
x x x x
The fifth and last witness presented by applicant was Mrs. Bienvenida Cavan, its Chief Accountant, who is based in Cebu City. Witness Cavan testified on the veracity and truthfulness of Exhibit "K," Certification that Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. had no loans, obligations or the like constituting a lien or encumbrance on the properties of Davao Light as of December 14, 1984.[47]
As this Honorable Court noted in its Davao Light v. ERB decision, one of the variables taken into consideration in the fixing of rates of public utilities is the rate base, which is made up of the value of properties in service plus two months working capital. With respect to the properties in service, the present or sound value is used, conformably with rulings of the Supreme Court in Manila Electric Company vs. Public Service Commission (18 SCRA 651 at 667-669) and a long line of earlier cases cited therein.As regards the second issue, the Court of Appeals held that —
It is precisely in this context that DALIGHT sought the approval by the Board of the sound value appraisal of its properties in service as of December 14,1984, and the same context in which the Board's approval was granted.
x x x x
In other words, the Board through the said decision, confirmed that the sound value of DALIGHT's properties in service on December 14, 1984 was P420,606,811.82.
In a technical, as well as practical sense, the P420,606,811.82 valuation and the value date, December 14, 1984, have to go together. Should such date be changed, the value of the properties would almost certainly be likewise different.
It is in this perspective that the time frame of the refund should be determined particularly the ending cut-off date thereof.
Viewed differently, the basis of the refund is the reduction of the value of DALIGHT's properties in service from P282,024,877.40 to P122,175,433.40. When the said value increased to P420,606,811.82, the reason for the refund ceased.
That time came to pass on December 14, 1984, not on September 18, 1989.
Be that as it may, the Board realizes the necessity of explaining the statement —
"This Decision shall take effect on the date hereof."
To be candid, that sentence is not only an unnecessary surplusage, but is to a large extent, meaningless. Generally, the statement is used in connection with the approval of rate adjustments, which necessarily have beginning effectivity dates. On the other hand, the approval of an appraisal, by itself, does not have any effect at all on the rates of a public utility. It is only when an adjustment is made on a utility's rates, using the appraisal as basis, could it be correctly said that the appraisal has taken effect.[49]
As to the second issue, it is necessary to refer to the pertinent portions of the following orders:In arriving at the afore-quoted conclusion, the Court of Appeals proceeded from the presumption that the 26 February 1996 order of the ERB contained 18 September 1989 as the cut-off date. A review of the records of this case discloses that what was attached as Annex "N"[51] to respondents' Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals was indeed an order dated 26 February 1998 by the ERB directing petitioner to furnish it with certain financial documents covering the period 19 January 1984 to 18 September 1989. Respondents' copy of the 26 February 1998 order was issued as a certified copy by Priscilla B. Salgado of the Special Audit Office.1) "x x x Accordingly, applicant is hereby directed to furnish the Board with the documents above stated during the period form January 19, 1984 to September 18, 1989, x x x" (Order dated February 26, 1998).We consider that while the period in the later order was declared by respondent Board for the purpose of computing petitioners' refund, there was no such express declaration in the earlier order. The period in the first order refers to the inclusive dates of the documents to be furnished to public respondent by private. However, the latter had the effect of providing a period of computing petitioners' refund.
2) "x x x The Commission on Audit (COA) is hereby requested to cause the audit and examination of the book and other records of DALIGHT as it deemed necessary, including the abovementioned documents, for purposes of computing the refund in this case covering the period from January 19, 1984 to December 14, 1984, and thereafter submit to the Board its audit report, copies furnished the parties herein who are given fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof to submit their respective comments thereon, in order to aid the Board in determining the appropriate refund. x x x" (Order dated June 4, 1998)
Query? Why else then would documents pertaining to the said period be submitted were it not for the purpose of computing petitioners' refund? It would be inutile to issue such order if not for the accomplishment of the said purpose.
Clearly, one can perceive that the Order of June 4, 1998 modified and/or changed the February 26, 1998 Order. While the earlier order provided the cut-off date as September 18, 1989, the later order specified the cut-off date of December 14, 1984.
The foregoing modification materially affected the rights of petitioners, as the reduction of the cut-off date shortened the period of the computation of petitioners' refund, which resulted in the diminution of the amount of said refund.[50]
In this case, we are inclined to give credence to the copy of the 26 February 1998 ERB order attached to the present petition as it was the certified copy issued by the ERB — the agency which promulgated it and is presumed to maintain the true and correct copy of said decision in its files. Besides, even the ERB maintains that the Annex "N" in respondents' petition before the Court of Appeals is not a faithful copy of the original and that "[t]he February 26, 1998 Order actually issued by the Board and which forms part of the records of ERB Case No. 91-181 specifies the period January 19, 1984 to December 14, 1984."[53]Rule 132
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
x x x x
Sec. 19. Classes of documents. — For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.
All other writings are private.
x x x x
Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence. — Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the dated of the latter.
Sec. 24. Proof of official record. - The record of public documents referred in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
Sec. 25. What attestation of copy must state. - Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having seal, under the seal of such court.
Moreover, even if it was indeed true that the ERB Order received by petitioners stated that the period was "from January 19, 1984 to September 18, 1989," that does not ipso facto mean that the private respondents altered or falsified the said order when it is clear that the order on file before the ERB states that the cut-off period was "from January 14, 1984 to December 14, 1984." The signed original copy of the questioned order, which is on file with the ERB, shall be considered as the best evidence anent the contents of said order. It is significant to point out that other than [sic] petitioners' imputation of the alleged alteration of dates, no other evidence was shown to substantiate the allegation that private respondents were the ones who initiated or took part in the said falsification and/or alteration. We also note that other than petitioners' bare allegations, no evidence was presented to show that private respondents gave unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to any party causing undue damage to them.[54]WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 23 February 2001 and the Resolution dated 27 September 2001 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Energy Regulatory Commission is ordered to proceed with the refund proceedings instituted by respondents herein with reasonable dispatch consistent with this Decision. No costs.