Meralco vs. PCFI

c

 




   

 

!

" # $
 %
Ô President Marcos issued PD 551 providing for the reduction from 5% to 2% of the franchise tax paid by electric companies Ô Philippine Consumers Foundation (PCFI) filed a petition to the Board of Energy (BOE) against Meralco. Ô PCFI sought for the immediate refund by Meralco to its customers of all the savings it realized under P. D. No. 551, through the reduction of its franchise tax from 5% to 2%, with interest at the legal rate; and for the payment of damages and a fine in the amount of P 50, 000.00 for violating P. D. 551. It moored its petition on Section 4 of P. D. No. 551 ÷ -SEC. 4.

All the savings realized by electric franchise holders from the reduction of the franchise tax under Section 1 and tariff reductions and tax credits under Sections 2 and 3, 
&








  
. The Secretary of Finance shall promulgate rules and regulations and devise a reporting system to carry out the provisions of this Decree.͟ Ô Meralco contends that it is authorized by the BOE to retain its savings. BOE supported the contention of Meralco. PCFI filed and was denied motion for reconsideration hence the instant petition for certiorari which was also denied by the SC Ô In 1991, RTC declared the decision of the SC null and void based on the dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice Ô Meralco moved for motion for reconsideration but was denied by the same RTC hence the instant petition u%
WON Meralco is duly authorized to retain the savings resulting from the reduction of the franchise tax under P. D. No. 551 WON RTC can annul decision already rendered by the SC WON private respondents can no longer avail of the remedy of an action for declaratory relief in view of the rule that such action should be filed before a violation of the statute occurred '%
The first contention has already been settled and cannot anymore be sanctioned under the principle of res judicata. For a claim of ›
  to prosper, the following requisites must concur: ( there must be a final judgment or order;
(
the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; ( it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and
c(
there must be, between the two cases identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. All the above requisites are extant in the records and thus, beyond dispute. A lower court cannot reverse or set aside decisions or orders of a superior court, especially of this Court, for to do so will negate the principle of hierarchy of courts and nullify the essence of review. A final judgment, albeit erroneous, is binding on the whole world. Thus, it is the duty of the lower courts to obey the Decisions of this Court and render obeisance to its status as the apex of the hierarchy of courts. -A becoming modesty of inferior courts demands conscious realization of the position that they occupy in the interrelation and operation of the integrated judicial system of the nation.͟ -There is only one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courts should take their bearings,͟ as eloquently declared by Justice J. B. L. Reyes. Respondent RTC, and for this matter, all lower courts, ought to be reminded that a final and executory decision or order can no longer be disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it may be. Although judicial determinations are not infallible, judicial error should be corrected through appeals, not through repeated suits on the same claim