RAZON FIRM BULLIES ILOILO JUDGE – PECO; MORE Power files admin charges in SC after unfavorable resolution

By: Francis Allan L. Angelo

MORE Electric and Power Corp (MORE) of port and gambling magnate Enrique Razon is trying to bully one of Iloilo’s strictest and fairest judges with misleading allegations for their own benefit.

This was the response of Marcelo Cacho, Panay Electric Company, Inc. (PECO) Head of Public Engagement and Government Affairs, upon learning that MORE Power filed an administrative case with the Supreme Court against Iloilo City Regional Trial Court Branch 35 Presiding Judge Daniel Antonio Gerardo S. Amular.

“MORE’s complaints against Judge Amular don’t really have a bearing on the expropriation case but merely serve to intimidate, not only Amular but also other judges who may be tasked to handle MORE’s cases in the future,” Cacho said in a statement.

“MORE wants to tell the judiciary that they will not take ‘no’ for an answer, or else they will pressure you and file cases against you,” he added.

“MORE’s administrative cases set a deadly precedent in that companies can just file complaints against judges who do not rule in their favor,” Cacho noted, adding that MORE always wants to take the easy way out by taking shortcuts in the processes.

“They are trying to railroad the judicial process, much like what they did in Congress,” Cacho claimed.

It may be recalled that RTC Judge Yvette Go had granted a writ of possession to MORE despite the pendency of its own appeal before the Supreme Court.

Judge Go, along with MORE, was then required by the High Court to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt for proceeding with the case.

When Judge Go inhibited from the case, Judge Amular took over and later issued an order on November 18, 2019 suspending the expropriation case filed by MORE in a bid to take over the power distribution facilities of PECO.

Amular’s order halted the issuance of the actual writ of possession. He noted that the Supreme Court had already ruled in another case that “the issue of constitutionality would be like a prejudicial question to the expropriation as it would be a waste of time and effort to appoint evaluation of commissioners and debate the market value of the property sought to be condemned if it turned out that the condemnation was illegal.”

Judge Amular said that he was suspending proceedings “in the interest of judicial fairness, respect to the Honorable Supreme Court, and for practical considerations.”

He also denied a motion asking that he recuse from the expropriation case.

“Look at this imperial Manila company that hasn’t even started operations here in our hometown of Iloilo. They’re trying to intimidate one of our strictest and fairest judges,” noted Cacho.

The SC stopped the Mandaluyong RTC from enforcing its ruling that declared the franchise granted by Congress to MORE Electric and Power Corp. and the expropriation of the assets of Panay Electric Co. (PECO) as unconstitutional. This latest SC ruling effectively overturned its previous ruling that upheld the same Mandaluyong RTC decision.

While MORE has secured a copy of the said TRO, it took time for PECO to receive its copy, according to Cacho.

Meanwhile, Attorney Estrella Elamparo, Senior Partner at Divina Law, revealed that they are saddened by the surprising development considering that the Supreme Court had already previously denied MORE’s prayer for a TRO.

“We would like to emphasize that the issuance of the writ cannot be considered ministerial because not only has the grant thereof been duly questioned by PECO, there is still a pending prejudicial question which is the pendency of the issue of the constitutionality of the expropriation,” Elamparo stressed.

She also noted that the standing jurisprudence (JM Tuason v. LTA) dictates that when the constitutionality of the expropriation has been questioned, the expropriation court should wait until the issue is settled before proceeding.

“This is the jurisprudence that Judge Amular has heeded,” Elamparo added.

Elamparo also stressed that MORE should not insinuate that the Dec 3, 2019 TRO in any way affects the RTC Iloilo proceedings.

TROs can only restrain an act that has not yet been accomplished. It cannot mandate the performance of an act, such as the issuance of a writ of possession or continuation of expropriation proceedings.

Elamparo also revealed that they have already filed a motion to lift the new TRO.

“I’m just wondering why they even bothered filing with the Supreme Court in the first place when they previously claimed that the Mandaluyong resolution has no bearing on the case and that they just wanted the expropriation to continue,” Cacho, in turn, noted.

 

“But we continue to have faith in our judicial processes and will abide by whatever final ruling our courts will have on the issues. In the meantime, MORE should not be jumping to erroneous conclusions that mislead the public, particularly the people of Iloilo,” Cacho added.