Court lifts TRO, clears Socoteco II plebiscite on Ignite joint venture deal

A power cooperative in South Cotabato defeated an attempt to block a plebiscite on its proposed partnership with Ignite Power and Energy Holdings Inc.

In a 12-page resolution dated September 11, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 62 in Polomolok, South Cotabato granted the motion of South Cotabato II Electric Cooperative (Socoteco II) to lift a temporary restraining order (TRO), removing the legal hurdle for its member-consumer-owners (MCOs) to vote on the planned deal.

The resolution, signed by Assisting Judge Vicente C. Andiano, lifted and dissolved the September 4 TRO, which had been extended until September 24 and had halted the initial voting set earlier this month.

The court also denied, for lack of merit, the application for a writ of preliminary injunction filed by plaintiff Eugene Mangilaya, an MCO, in Civil Case No. 1088-26.

Mangilaya had alleged that the Socoteco II board approved the conditional joint venture agreement (JVA) under Board Resolution No. 104 without submitting the agenda for the assembly’s approval and without furnishing members with copies of the resolution or the agreement.

The court said the claim of a lack of transparency “lacks proof,” noting that the plaintiff failed to show the specific provision of law, by-laws, or board resolution from which his asserted right to scrutinize the JVA was derived.

It likewise dismissed as “merely speculative and not conclusive” the allegations on the conduct of the plebiscite itself, including the allowance of proxy voting and the counting and publicizing of results at the end of each of the eight voting days.

“What plaintiff offers is a conjecture presented as violation, and an injunction will not protect a right founded on nothing more than speculative claim,” the resolution read.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish all four requisites for injunctive relief: a clear and unmistakable right, a material and substantial invasion of that right, an urgent need to prevent irreparable injury, and the absence of any other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy.

It noted that the JVA remains, by its own terms, “conditional and incomplete,” with the plebiscite being only one stage in that design and further steps of ratification and execution yet to occur.

Should the plebiscite proceed and later be shown after full trial to have been tainted by the alleged irregularities, the court said nothing prevents it from nullifying the plebiscite and the JVA it purports to ratify, and from awarding whatever damages the plaintiff is able to prove.

“The JVA remains subject to a final, independent stage. It has not yet happened. Until it does, whatever consequence plaintiff fears from it remains a possibility hedged by condition, not an injury demonstrable in the present,” the court said.

The resolution does not resolve the merits of the main case, which the court said must be determined at trial.

During the summary hearing on September 11, the plaintiff manifested that he no longer wanted to argue orally, and his counsel declined to answer the court’s queries, according to the resolution.

The court said it could only surmise that this was due to the motion for inhibition of the assisting judge, which the plaintiff filed on the night of September 10 and which the court said it would resolve in a separate order.

Socoteco II, meanwhile, said voting could now proceed, with dates set on September 19 to 20 and September 26 to 27.

Ignite Power is backed by boxing legend and former Senator Manny Pacquiao, along with Prime Electric Holdings Inc., led by Razon.

The 72-hour TRO was issued on September 4 by Executive Judge Allan Edwin P. Boncavil after Mangilaya filed on September 3 a complaint seeking, among others, the declaration of nullity of the plebiscite and its guidelines, injunction, and damages.

On September 7, Judge Alena Gale H. Palileo-Yabes of RTC Branch 39, acting as pairing judge, extended the TRO until September 24 after finding “sufficient grounds” to preserve the status quo while the court considered the application for a writ of preliminary injunction.

The extension order said the records showed, on a prima facie basis, that the acts sought to be restrained were either imminent or already being undertaken, and that failure to restrain them could cause “grave injustice and irreparable injury” to the applicant.

“Accordingly, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, the seventy-two-hour Temporary Restraining Order issued on 4 September 2026 is hereby EXTENDED and shall remain effective until 24 September 2026,” the order said.

The court noted at the time that the TRO’s total effectivity period must not exceed 20 days from the date of its service, in accordance with the Rules of Court.

The case was originally raffled to RTC Branch 62, but Boncavil was on leave and Andiano was unavailable when the extension was sought, prompting Palileo-Yabes to act under the pairing system recognized under Office of the Court Administrator Circular No. 19-98, as reiterated in OCA Circular No. 06-2020.

Socoteco II filed its motion to lift the TRO on September 8, and the court set the hearing on the motion and on the injunction application on September 11.

Socoteco II had earlier scheduled the plebiscite on the proposed conditional JVA over four weekends in September: September 5-6, 12-13, 19-20 and 26-27.

The proposed agreement involves the transfer of Socoteco II’s distribution assets to a new distribution company, with 70% of the payment to be made in cash and the remaining 30% converted into an equity stake for the cooperative.

Ignite Power has also proposed reducing the system loss charge passed on to consumers from Socoteco II’s current recoverable cap of 8.25% to 5.5%.