MACEDA V. ENERGY REGULATORY BOARDG.R. No. 96266 July 18, 1991ERNESTO M. MACEDA, petitioner,vs.

ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, CALTEX(Philippines), INC., PILIPINAS SHELLPETROLEUM CORPORATION AND PETRONCORPORATION, respondents. Nature: P e t i t i o n f o r n u l l i f i c a t i o n o f t h e E n e r g y Regulatory Board (ERB) Orders dated December 5a n d 6 , 1 9 9 0 o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e h e a r i n g s conducted on the second provisional increase ino i l p r i c e s d i d n o t a l l o w h e r e i n p e t i t i o n e r substantial cross-examination, in effect, allegedly,a denial of due process. Facts: On August 2, 1990, private respondents oilc o m p a n i e s f i l e d w i t h t h e E R B t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e applications on oil price increases.On September 21, 1990, the ERB issued an ordergranting a provisional increase of P1.42 per liter.Petitioner Maceda filed a petition for Prohibitionon September 26, 1990.Hearing for the presentation of the evidence-inc h i e f c o m m e n c e d o n N o v e m b e r 2 1 , 1 9 9 0 . E R B subsequently outlined the procedure as follows:.. it has been traditional and it is the intention of t h e B o a r d t o a c t o n t h e s e a p p l i c a t i o n s o n a n industry-wide basis, whether to accept, reject,m o d i f y o r w h a t e v e r , t h e B o a r d w i l l d o i t o n a n industry wide basis, so, the best way to have theoppositors and the Board a clear picture of whatt h e a p p l i c a n t s a r e a s k i n g f o r i s t o h a v e a l l t h e evidence-in-chief to be placed on record first andthen the examination will come later, the cross-examination will come later..P e t i t i o n e r M a c e d a m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h i s o r d e r o f proof deprived him of his right to finish his cross-examination of Petron's witnesses and denied himhis right to cross-examine each of the witnesses of Caltex and Shell. He points out that this relaxedprocedure resulted in the denial of due process. Issue: W O N t h e E B R a c t e d i n g r a v e a b u s e o f discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Held: Such a relaxed procedure is especially truein administrative bodies, such as the ERB which inm a t t e r s o f r a t e o r p r i c e f i x i n g i s c o n s i d e r e d a s exercising a quasilegislative , not quasi-judicial,function As such administrative agency, it is notbound by the strict or technical rules of evidencegoverning court proceedings.In fact, Section 2, Rule I of the Rules of Practiceand Procedure Governing Hearings Before the ERBprovides that These Rules shall govern pleadings, practice andprocedure before the Energy Regulatory Board inall matters of inquiry, study, hearing,

investigationa n d / o r a n y o t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s w i t h i n t h e jurisdict ion of the Board. However, in the broader i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e , t h e B o a r d m a y , i n a n y partic ular matter, except itself from these rulesa n d a p p l y s u c h s u i t a b l e p r o c e d u r e a s s h a l l promote the objectives of the Order .We dismissed the petition on December 18, 1990,reaffirming ERB's authority to grant provisionalincrease even without prior hearing, pursuant toSec. 8 of E.O. No. 172, under Executive Order No.1 7 2 , a h e a r i n g i s i n d i s p e n s a b l e , i t d o e s n o t p r e c l u d e t h e B o a r d from ordering, ex-parte , aprovisional increase, as it did here, subject to itsfinal disposition of whether or not: (1) to make itpermanent; (2) to reduce or increase it further; or (3) to deny the application.