ESTOQUE

SHERL DIANNE S. ESTOQUE

LLB-I

Constitutional Law

Case Digest

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. PINATUBO COMMERCIAL, represented by ALFREDO A. DY, Respondent

G.R. No. 176006, March 26, 2010

FACT:

The National Power Corporation (NPC) questions the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, declaring items 3 and 3.1 of NPC Circular No. 99-75 unconstitutional, which [allow] only partnerships or corporations that directly use aluminum as the raw material in producing finished products either purely or partly out of aluminum, to participate in the bidding for the disposal of ACSR wires as unconstitutional for being violative of substantial due process and the equal protection clause of the Constitution as well as for restraining competitive free trade and commerce.

ISSUE(S):        

Whether items 3 and 3.1 of NPC Circular No. 99-75 -

(a) violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution and

(b) restrained free trade and competition.

RULING:

The equal protection clause means that “no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances.” The guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on a reasonable classification. The equal protection clause, therefore, does not preclude classification of individuals who may be accorded different treatment under the law as long as the classification is reasonable and not arbitrary.

Items 3 and 3.1 clearly did not infringe on the equal protection clause as these were based on a reasonable classification intended to protect, not the right of any business or trade but the integrity of government property, as well as promote the objectives of RA 7832. Traders like Pinatubo could not claim similar treatment as direct manufacturers/processors especially in the light of their failure to negate the rationale behind the distinction.