Article III Sec.

1
Maceda vs. Energy Regulatory Board
GR 96266 July 18, 1991/GR 96349 July 18, 1991/GR 96284, July 18, 1991

Quick Digest: Petition Maceda seeks to declare the nullification of the ERB (Energy Regulatory Board)
Orders dated Dec 5 and 6, 1990 on the ground that hearings conducted on the increase in oil prices did not
allow him substantial cross-examination, a denial of due process
Facts:
1. On August 2, 1990, Upon the outbreak of Persian Gulf war, oil companies filed with the ERP for
an oil price increase
- On September 21, 1990, ERB issues an order granting a 1.42 increase/liter
- Maceda files petition to nullify; SC dismisses and reaffirms ERBs authority even without a
hearing pursuant to section 8 of E.O. 172
- although a hearing is indispensable, it does not preclude the Board from ordering, ex-parte,
a provisional increase subject to its final disposition
2. ERB sets the application for hearing with due notice to all interested parties
- 3 oil companies filed their motions for leave to file or admit amended/supplemental
applications to further increase the prices of petroleum
- ERB outlines procedure to be observed for the reception of evidence: all the evidence-inchief to be placed on record first and then the examination will come later, the cross
examination will come later
- Maceda claims he is denied the right to cross-examine Petron, Caltex, and Shell witnesses
and points out the denial of due process
3. In response to the presidents appeal, the subsequent increase in premium and regular gasoline
was rolled back on Dec. 10, 1990 to the levels mandated in Dec. 5, 1990
Issues:
-

W/N the ERB is bound by the same rules governing court proceedings
W/N there is substantial evidence to support the provisional relief
W/N the price increase to augment the OPSF will constitute illegal taxation

Held:
1. W/N the ERB is bound by the same rules governing court proceedings
No. The Solicitor General points out that the order and general course of the trial is left to the discretion
of the court. Such procedure is true in administrative bodies such as the ERB which in matters of price
fixing is considered a quasi-legislative body. It is not bound by strict and technical rules of evidence.
2. W/N there is substantial evidence to support the provisional relief

Yes. The Solicitor general commented that the evidence considered by the ERB included (1)certified
copies of bills issued by crude oil suppliers, (2) reports of bankers association of the Philippines on
the peso-dollar exchange rate and (3) the OPSF status reports
3. W/N the price increase to augment the OPSF constitutes illegal taxation
No. The board order authorizing the proceeds generated to be deposited in the OPSF is not an act of
taxation because it is authorized by P.D. 1956

Dissenting Opinions:
1. Paras, J.
- The ERB has no power to tax which is solely the prerogative of Congress.
2. Padilla, J
- Any increase, provisional or otherwise, should be allowed only after the ERB has fully
determine through full hearings that it is necessary