POWER STRUGGLE: SC denies PECO plea to move expropriation case outside Iloilo

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

The Supreme Court denied the petition filed by Panay Electric Co. (PECO) to move the expropriation case filed by MORE Electric and Power Corp. utility because the two options it sought are not valid and lacked justification.

PECO’s franchise has expired a year ago while MORE Power is the new franchise holder and distributor in Iloilo City via Republic Act 11212.

The SC resolution dated Dec 4, 2019 was issued a week after Iloilo City Regional Trial Court Judge Daniel Antonio Gerardo S. Amular, who is hearing the expropriation case, suggested that the matter be transferred outside Iloilo City because it had become “too politicized.”

Amular aired his desire to transfer the case after he was charged for bias by MORE Power officials before the Supreme Court.

“The SC order denying the petition of PECO to transfer venue of the case is self explanatory. Anyone who reads it will understand the meaning of it,” according to MORE Power president and COO Roel Castro.

The Dec. 4 resolution also came a day after the Dec 3, 2019 resolution by the High Court imposing a Temporary Restraining Order against the Mandaluyong Regional Trial Court and PECO from implementing the lower court’s decision declaring Sections 10 and 17 of Republic Act No. 11212 as unconstitutional.

Sections 10 and 17 of RA 11212 granted MORE Power, as the new distribution utility in Iloilo City, the power of eminent domain and to expropriate any asset, including existing distribution assets in the city.

MORE Power had secured the franchise while the House Committee on Legislative Franchise denied PECO’s application to renew its franchise which expired on Jan 18, 2019.

In its Dec 4 resolution on PECO’s petition for the transfer of the case, the SC rejected and even labelled as unmeritorious the latter’s premise that public scrutiny could affect the judge who handled the expropriation proceedings as “the mere possibility of prejudice is not sufficient to justify a transfer of venue, as aptly argue(d) by respondent MORE.”

The High Court also said that PECO failed to present “adequate proof that the accompanying publicity may cause prejudice to it.”

Third, the SC said PECO also “failed to prove that a miscarriage of justice would arise in the event of that the subject case continues to be heard in the RTC of Iloilo City.”

The Supreme Court also said that “to the argument that there is a possibility that the two co-equal courts (Iloilo City and Mandaluyong City RTCs) would render conflicting decisions, the same had been rendered moot and academic by the fact that the Mandaluyong RTC has already rendered its judgment” which is now pending review by the Supreme Court on petition of MORE.

The SC resolution arose from PECO’s opposition to the expropriation proceedings initiated by MORE with the Iloilo City RTC in March 2019.

As the new utility, MORE invoked Sections 10 and 17 of RA 11212 to expropriate the distribution assets of PECO in exchange for about P500 million in line with its 25-year congressional franchise to distribute electricity in Iloilo City.

Earlier, PECO had filed a petition with the Mandaluyong RTC questioning the constitutionality of Sections 10 and 17 of RA 11212.

Unable to convince Iloilo City RTC Judge Marie Yvette D. Go to stop the expropriation proceedings because of its petition with the Mandaluyong RTC, PECO petitioned the SC to transfer the case to another court in Metro Manila or to consolidate it with the case pending then with the Mandaluyong RTC.

Judge Go subsequently issued in August 2019 an order for the issuance of a Writ of Possession (WOP) for PECO’s distribution assets, but she inhibited herself from the case right after issuing the order.

In the re-raffle of the case, Judge Amular took over and immediately issued a gag order to all parties involved while ignoring Judge Go’s WOP and announcing his own plans to conduct further hearings to determine if the expropriation was proper and legal.

On Nov. 28, 2019, Judge Amular suspended the expropriation proceedings citing the Mandaluyong RTC’s adverse decision and the pendency of MORE’s appeal before the SC.

A week after, the SC issued a TRO on the Mandaluyong RTC and PECO stopping them from using the questioned decision which shall remain in effect until the SC renders a decision on the main case.

Unwilling to lift the suspension of the expropriation proceedings, Amular was charged by MORE with an administrative case before the Supreme Court.

The case sought his removal as judge handling the case because of his alleged bias in favor of PECO when he allegedly ordered MORE in a conference in his chambers with officials of the two companies to settle with PECO without the presence of counsels.

Amular subsequently released a statement calling for the transfer of the case outside Iloilo City because it has been “too politicized.”