(Part) 21 EN BANC | HERNANDO, J. COA v Pampilo | Factual Antecedents The material and relevant facts are as follows: On March 21, 2003, private respondent Social Justice Society (SJS), a political parry duly registered with the Commission of Elections, filed with the RTC of Manila, a Petition for Declaratory Relief,6 docketed as Civil Case No. 03-106101, against Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Shell); Caltex Philippines, Inc. (Caltex), and Petron Corporation (Petron), collectively referred to as the "Big 3." In its Petition, private respondent SJS raised as an issue the oil companies' business practice of increasing the prices of their petroleum products whenever the price of crude oil increases in the world market despite that fact that they had purchased their inventories at a much lower price long before the increase. SJS argued that such practice constitutes monopoly and combination in restraint of trade, prohibited under Article 1867 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). SJS likewise contended that the acts of these oil companies of increasing the prices of its oil products whenever their competitors increase their prices fall under the term "combination or concerted action" used in Section 11 (a)8 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8479, otherwise known as the Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1998 (Approved on February 10, 1998). The Petition was later amended to include private respondent Atty. Vladmir Alarique T. Cabigao (Cabigao), a member of private respondent SJS, as an additional petitioner to the case.9 The Big 3 separately moved for the dismissal of the case on the grounds of lack of legal standing, lack of cause of action, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.10 On December 17, 2003, public respondent RTC issued an Order11 denying the motions to dismiss and directing the parties to refer the matter to the Joint Task Force of the Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Justice (DOJ) pursuant to Section 11 of RA 8479. In the meantime, public respondent RTC ordered the suspension of the proceedings. Chevron sought reconsideration but public respondent RTC denied the same in its June 30, 2004 Order.12 Thereafter, the DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force submitted its Report13 finding no clear evidence that the Big 3 violated Article 186 of the RPC or Section 11 (a) of RA 8479. Based on the said report, the Big 3 orally moved for the dismissal of the case.14 Private respondents, on the other hand, moved to open and examine the books of account of the Big 3 to enable the court to determine whether Section 11 (a) of RA 8479 had been violated.15 The end FOLLOW US! 🛒 https://shopple.co/Lex-curiae
▶️ https://youtube.com/@attyphiljuris
🌐 https://bit.ly/m/AttyEblogger
🛩️ https://t.me/phiLJuris
🎭 https://discord.gg/czBysynhY3
📱 FB Pages
https://pastepeso.com/g0vozbh