This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-10-19 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Furthermore, while the periodic, interim and other toll rate adjustment formulas are indicated in the STOAs,[126] it does not necessarily mean that the TRB should accept a rate adjustment predicated on the economic data, references or assumptions adopted by the toll operator. At the end of the day, the final figures should be those of the TRB based on its appreciation of the relevant rate-influencing data. In fine, the TRB should exercise its rate-fixing powers vested to it by law within the context of the agreed formula, but always having in mind that the rates should be just and reasonable. Conversely, it is very well within the power of the TRB under the law to approve the change in the current toll fees.[127] Section 3 (d) of P.D. 1112 grants the TRB the power to "[i]ssue, modify and promulgate from time to time the rates of toll that will be charged the direct users of toll facilities." But the reasonableness of a possible increase in the fees must first be clearly and convincingly established by the petitioning entities, i.e. the toll operators. Otherwise, the same should not be granted by the approving authority concerned. In Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation v. Alcuaz,[128] the Court had the opportunity to explain what is meant by a just and reasonable fixing of rates, thus: Hence, the inherent power and authority of the State, or its authorized agent, to regulate the rates charged by public utilities should be subject always to the requirement that the rates so fixed shall be reasonable and just. A commission has no power to fix rates which are unreasonable or to regulate them arbitrarily. This basic requirement of reasonableness comprehends such rates which must not be so low as to be confiscatory, or too high as to be oppressive. | |||||
|
2006-08-03 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The Committee's authority to fix the selling price of the lots may be likened to the rate-fixing power of administrative agencies. In case of a delegation of rate-fixing power, the only standard which the legislature is required to prescribe for the guidance of the administrative authority is that the rate be reasonable and just. However, it has been held that even in the absence of an express requirement as to reasonableness, this standard may be implied.[29] In this regard, petitioners do not even claim that the selling price of the lots is unreasonable. | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to these provisions, the APT drafted the ASBR. Since the APT's rule-making authority is merely delegated, the ASBR should be measured by the standard set by said proclamation.[34] Notably, the discretion granted by the proclamation to the APT for the sale of government property is circumscribed only by the "best interest of the National Government." | |||||