Philippine Institute of Petroleum, Inc. v. Department of Energy

 

Philippine Institute of Petroleum, Inc. v. Department of Energy

G.R. No. 266310

July 31, 2024

 

FACTS:

                On February 10, 1998, RA 8479 or the Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1998 was approved to liberalize and deregulate the downstream oil industry in order to ensure a truly competitive market under a regime of fair prices, adequate continuous supply of environmentally-clean and high quality petroleum products. The DOE issued DC2019-05-008 which contained the detailed computation with corresponding explanation and supporting documents on unbundled items comprising the Oil Company Price. On June 21, 2019, PIP, an association of businesses operating in the downstream oil industry, together with Isla, PTT, and TPC, companies which are engaged in the business of petroleum products, filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with Application for TRO and WPI before the RTC of Makati. PIP et al. alleged that the issued DC violated their rights and is contrary to RA 8479 because:

(1)    Articles II, IV, and V thereof are forms of price control, and contrary to the policy of full deregulation of the downstream oil industry;

(2)    Articles II, IV, and V impose impossible requirements on oil companies and other related parties;

(3)    Articles II, IV, and V do no find support in RA 8479, particularly with respect to its anti-trust provisions, with the passage of RA 10667;

(4)    DC2019-05-0008 affects PIP et al. and other entities; right to a truly competitive market, and their right against disclosure of their trade secrets and/or privileged or confidential information.

The RTC granted the WPI. The DOE moved for reconsideration but was denied so a Petition for Certiorari was file before the CA. It partly granted the Petition.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the appellate court committed grave error when it reversed and set aside the RTC’s issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

HELD:

                No. A writ of preliminary injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of substantial rights and interests. It is not a cause of action itself, but a mere provisional remedy adjunct to a main suit. The purpose of injunction is to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to the parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied, and its sole aim is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case are fully heard. The requisites are as follows:

A.      The applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, that is a right in esse;

B.      There is a material and substantial invasion of such right;

C.      There is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant; and,

D.      No other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury

Here, PIP et al. have no clear and unmistakable right. A plain reading of the provisions of RA 8479 would show that it is pursuant to these powers and functions that the assailed DC2019-05-008 was issued. RA 8479 is clear in allowing the DOE and the DOE Secretary to require the oil companies to submit a detailed report on the petroleum products, in such form as the Secretary may prescribe, in order for the DOE to fulfill its mandated duty of monitoring and publishing daily international crude oil prices, as well as following the movement of domestic oil prices. Given that it is quite literally the mandate of the DOE under the law, it cannot be said that PIP et al. have any clear legal right against the implementation of DC2019-05-0008. It bears noting that they themselves conceded that the DOE has indeed monitoring powers under RA 8479.

                There is no substantial or material invasion of PIP et al.’s rights. Article II Section 3 merely requires oil companies to notify the DOE for any price adjustment or the lack thereof. Article II, Section 4 simply suggests the day of implementation of the price adjustment for liquid fuel. Article IV, Section 7, and Article V, Section 8, only require oil companies to submit a formal notice and report to the OIMB any price adjustment, or the lack thereof, of petroleum products subject of sale and a detailed computation on the unbundled items comprising the oil company price. Similar to the previous provisions, Article V, Section 9, simply imposes a reportorial requirement for LF Retail Outlets, LPG Refillers, and LPG Dealers in the format provided. Lastly, Article VI, Section 11, merely provides for penalties upon non-compliant companies, outlets, refillers, and dealers, which finds basis in RA 8479.

                As gleaned from the foregoing, it is implausible that these provisions can be construed as forms of price control. They neither mandate, fix, nor set restrictions on the prices for such petroleum products. They simply require oil companies to give notice and submit reports to the DOE, which is authorized under RA 8479. Meanwhile, the penal sanctions are included to ensure the proper observance of such requirements.

                There is no urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to PIP et al. They failed to establish a substantial or material invasion of a clear and unmistakable right against the implementation of DC2019-05-0008. Since there is no legal right in the first place, there can be no irreparable injury to speak of.