Nasecore v Erc Case Digest

Assign no. 2  NASECORE V. V. ERC

FACTS: The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), reate! un!er the  Electric Power Industry Reform Act of  2001 (E"#RA), use! to a$$ly the Return on Rate %ase (ROR%) metho! to !etermine the $ro$er amount a !istri&ution utility (') may harge or the ser*ies it $ro*i!es. The ROR% sheme ha! &een the metho! or om$uting allo+a&le eletriity harges in the "hili$$ines or !ea!es, &eore the onset o the E"#RA. Setion - () o the E"#RA allo+s the ERC to shit rom the ROR% metho!ology to alternati*e orms o  internationally ae$te! ratesetting metho!ology, su&/et to multi$le on!itions. The ERC, through a series o resolutions, a!o$te! the "erormane%ase! Regulation ("%R) metho! to set the allo+a&le rates 's may harge their ustomers. 0eralo, a ', a$$lie! or an inrease o its !istri&ution rate un!er the "%R sheme !o1ete! as ERC Case No. 2345 RC (0A" 26 ase) on 5 August 23. "etitioners  NASECORE, FO7V FO7VA, FOVA, FOVA, an! Engineer Ro&ert F. F. 0allillin (0allillin) (0allillin) all ile! their o+n "etitions "etitions or  #nter*ention to o$$ose the a$$liation o 0eralo. 8o+e*er, ERC grante! the a$$liation !ue to the $etitioners9 ailure to a$$ear in the hearing. 8ene,  $etitioners see1 or a TRO. #SSE: hethr or not $etition shall &e grante!; 8E7':  No. This Court in!s that the real moti*e &ehin! the iling o the $resent "etition is to o&tain an in!einite TRO an! this, the Court annot ountenane. Setion 3, Rule 4< o the Rules o Court $ro*i!es the rules or $ermanent in/untions, to +it: Se. 3. When final injunction granted.  =  # ater the trial o the ation it a$$ears that the a$$liant is entitle! to ha*e the at or  ats ats om$la om$laine ine! ! o $erman $ermanent ently ly en/oin en/oine!, e!, the ourt ourt shall shall grant grant a inal inal in/un in/unti tion on  $er$etually restraining the $arty or $erson en/oine! rom the ommission or  ontinuane o the at or ats or onirming the $reliminary man!atory in/untion. "etitioners assert that this Court shoul! issue a TRO &eause o the huge amount that +oul! un!uly  &ur!en the onsumers +ith the ontinue! a$$liation o the 0A" 26 rates. Aor!ing to $etitioners, >i  not staye!, the $resent $resent inanial inanial har!shi$s har!shi$s o .- million 0ERA7CO ustomers ustomers !ue to the glo&al

inanial melt!o+n an! the reent alamities in the ountry +ill surely urther +orsen.> "etitioners also laim that there is an e?treme urgeny to seure a TRO, onsi!ering that the assaile! 'eision is imme!iately e?eutory. The $ur$ose o a TRO is to $re*ent a threatene! +rong an! to $rotet the $ro$erty or rights in*ol*e! rom urther in/ury, until the issues an &e !etermine! ater a hearing on the merits. n!er Setion 4, Rule 4< o the 6335 Rules o Ci*il "roe!ure, a TRO may &e issue! only i it a$$ears rom the ats sho+n &y ai!a*its or &y a *eriie! a$$liation that great or irre$ara&le in/ury +oul! &e inurre! &y an a$$liant  &eore the +rit o $reliminary in/untion oul! &e hear!. # suh irre$ara&le in/ury +oul! result rom the nonissuane o the re@ueste! +rit or i the >e?treme urgeny> reerre! to &y $etitioners in!ee! e?ists, then they shoul! ha*e &een more *igilant in $roteting their rights. As they ha*e all &een !uly notiie! o the $roee!ings in the ERC ase, they shoul! ha*e a$$eare! &eore the ERC an! $artii$ate! in the trials. e in! that $etitioners erre! in thin1ing that the nonissuane o the TRO they re@ueste! +oul! $ut onsumers in !anger o suering an >irre$ara&le in/ury>. %ut this asserte! in/ury an &e re$aire!, &eause, ha! $etitioners $artii$ate! in the $roee!ings &eore the ERC an! the latter ha! oun! merit in their  a$$eal, the un!ue inrease in eletri &ills shall &e reun!e! to the onsumers. WHEREFORE, SO ORDERED.

the instant $etition is here&y

DISMISSED .