No way for PECO to regain franchise

By Herbert Vego

 

JUDGE Emerald Requina-Contreras of the Regional Trial Court (RTC Iloilo, Branch 23) has denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Panay Electric Co. (PECO)  against her order issuing a writ of possession to MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power), enabling the latter to take over the power distribution facilities in Iloilo City.

 

The judge simply cited the fact that, with MORE Power now in possession of both the legislative franchise granted by law (RA 11212) and the certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) from the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), PECO has no more basis to contest the writ, there being “no order from the higher court to rule otherwise.”

 

In fact, the Court of Appeals, in issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) against another RTC at Mandaluyong City for calling the expropriation of the distribution utility “unconstgitutional”, rebuked it for “grave abuse of discretion.”

 

Once it reached the Supreme Court, the latter also restrained the Mandaluyong RTC from enforcing its ruling.

 

It boggles our imagination why PECO would not accept itself as already a piece of “history,” to quote Iloilo City councilor Romel Furon; and so it has asked the help of Abang Lingkod party-list congressman Joseph Stephen  Paduano to call for a House probe on alleged “inefficiency” and “inexperience” of MORE Power in the power industry.

 

If PECO’s motive is to win back its power franchise that expired on January 19, 2019 by citing “failure” on the part of MORE to play its role, it would only succeed in bringing back its own ineptness in the event a congressional inquiry unfolds.

 

Some past members who are also among the present members of the House of Representatives would recall that they had junked PECO’s application for renewal of franchise precisely because of verified complaints from Iloilo City residents and businessmen.

 

I remember it was sometime in March 2017 when the House conducted a congressional probe over alleged anomalies committed by Panay Electric Company (PECO) upon request by the Sangguniang Panglunsod.

 

Among the city consumers’ complaints against PECO were inaccurate meter readings, sudden rise in electric bills and unfair charges for system’s loss due to power pilferage.

 

A fellow journalist, the late Danny Fajardo, complained that his latest monthly bill for residential power had hit P15,000. That was triple his usual monthly bill.

 

The city councilors complained that PECO had been snubbing their repetitive invitations to a hearing that could have afforded them the opportunity to answer their customers’ complaints.

 

PECO officials were probably of the impression that the Iloilo City congressman at that time, now Mayor Jerry P. Treñas, would come to their “rescue” because he had served as their lawyer.

 

I remember that then councilor Joshua Alim expressed fear that Treñas would side with PECO.

 

But the congressman did the right thing by inhibiting himself from participating in the inquiry due to conflict of interest and in accordance with Rule 15 of the lawyers’ Code of Professional Responsibility: “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts.”

 

Treñas welcomed the congressional inquiry without his participation. As quoted by the local newspapers, he said, “Kon imbestigahan gid man sang Congress, then I just have to disclose that PECO is one of the clients of the law office of which I am a member. Kon may ara dapat imbestigahon, imbestigahon.” 

 

As a power consumer himself, Treñas might have thought that PECO deserved disciplinary  action from the House of Representatives’ committee on legislative franchises. What if, indeed, the company had been overbilling customers?

His wife Rosalie and their children run restaurants and bakeshops that consume mega electricity.

 

The then Mayor Jed Patrick Mabilog also welcomed the congressional probe, saying, “Consumer protection is one of our top priorities. We will not tolerate overpricing and PECO has to be made accountable.”

The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) confirmed the overpricing complaints and ordered PECO to refund the affected customers.

To this day, many still complain of not having been refunded.

The records of the past, once resurfaced, would only sink PECO further in unnecessary legal expenses if it insists on regaining its expired franchise.

Otherwise, it could earn P482 million in “just compensation” from MORE Power as provided by RA 11212. No sweat.