Phil. Sinter Corp. and Phividec Indutrial Authority vs.

Cagayan Electric
Power and Light Co., Inc.
Doctrine: The rule indeed is, and had almost invariably been, that after 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
in such execution.

FACTS:
-Cabinet reform policy memo, item no.2 provides that industries authorized shall
continue direct connection with the NAPOCOR grid until the stepping up of capable
distributors.
-Now, petitioner, CEPALCO goes to the ERB and tells them that they are capable of
distributing electricity in certain areas in Misamis Oriental. ERB expressed that
CEPALCO is indeed capable.
-NAPOCOR then files a motion for reconsideration which the ERB then denies.
-Now, authorized, CEPALCO goes to the PSC (one industry authorized by CM No.2)
telling them that they are now in charge of the transmission of energy. PSC
considering that they still had existing contracts with NAPOCOR then filed an
injunction with the RTC of CDO stating that the ERB decision has no legal basis and
that such is not binding to PSC because it was not impleaded in the case, and that
they are under the area of PIA and not CEPALCO.
-The RTC was in favor of the PSC and PIA- an injunction was issued.
-CEPALCO brought the case to the CA, who favored them.

ISSUE:
W/N injunction lies against the final and executor judgment of the ERB.
HELD:
No. Injunction is unavailing except only after showing that facts and circumstances
exists which would render execution unjust or inequitable or that a change in the
situation of the parties occurred. In this case, no exception exists.