Philippine Sinter Corp v. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co. Inc., G.R. No.

127371 (2002)]

Facts:
President Corazon C. Aquino and her Cabinet approved a Cabinet Reform Policy for the
power sector and issued a Cabinet Memorandum... of which provides:... ontinue 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 the franchise... area of the specific
utility or cooperative.
[3]
Pursuant to such Cabinet Memorandum, respondent Cagayan Electric Power and Light, Co.
(CEPALCO), grantee of a legislative franchise[3] to distribute electric power
, filed with the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) a petition
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."
ERB rendered a decision[5] 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.
Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, 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 subject of a petition for review.
On a petition for review on certiorari,[7] this 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
To restrain the execution of the ERB Decision, PSC and PIA filed a complaint for injunction
against CEPALCO with the Regional Trial Court
They alleged, inter alia, that there exists no legal basis to... cut-off PSC's power supply with
NAPOCOR and substitute the latter with CEPALCO since:  (a) there is a subsisting contract
between PSC and NAPOCOR; (b) the ERB decision is not binding on PSC since it was not
impleaded as a party to the case; and (c) PSC is operating within... the PHIVIDEC Industrial
Estate, a franchise area of PIA, not CEPALCO, pursuant to Sec. 4 (1) of P.D. 538.
the trial court rendered judgment[12] in favor of PSC and PIA
Aggrieved, CEPALCO appealed to the Court of Appeals.
the petition is hereby GRANTED.
Issues:
whether or not injunction lies against the final and executory judgment of the ERB.
We rule in the negativ
We rule in the negative.
Ruling:
We rule in the negative.
The rule indeed is, and has almost invariably been, that after a judgment has gained finality,
it becomes the ministerial duty of the court to order its execution.   No court, perforce,
should interfere by injunction or otherwise to restrain such... execution.  The rule, however,
concededly admits of exceptions; hence, when facts and circumstances later transpire that
would render execution inequitable or unjust, the interested party may ask a competent
court to stay its execution or prevent its enforcement.  So,... also, a change in the situation
of the parties can warrant an injunctive relief.
Clearly, 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.
We have stated before, and reiterate it now, that administrative decisions must end
sometime, as fully as public policy demands that finality be written on judicial 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 of this 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.[25] 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 ensure
judicial stability in the administration of justice... whereby the judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified or vacated by any court of concurrent
jurisdiction.[26]
Granting that the ERB decision has not attained finality,or that the ERB is not co-equal with
the RTC, still injunction will not lie.   As a rule, to justify the injunctive relief prayed for, the
movant must show: (1) the existence of a right in esse or... the existence of a right to be
protected; and (2) the act against which injunction is to be directed is a violation of such
right.[27] In the case at bar, petitioners failed to show any clear legal right which would be
violated if the power supply of PSC... from the NAPOCOR is disconnected and transferred
to CEPALCO.