ILOILO City – The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 35 suspend proceedings in the expropriation case filed by MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power) against long-time power distribution utility Panay Electric Co. (PECO) “in the interest of judicial fairness, respect to the Honorable Supreme Court (SC) and for practical considerations.”
Also, in his order dated Nov. 18, Presiding Judge Daniel Antionio Gerardo Amular denied for lack of factual basis MORE Power’s motion seeking his inhibition from the case.
In suspending the expropriation proceedings, Amular cited supervening events that placed the court in a situation – whether to proceed not with the implementation of the writ of possession against PECO.
The previous judge handling the expropriation case, Judge Yvette Go, issued a writ of possession against PECO’s assets before inhibiting herself.
According to Amular, the expropriation case is extraordinary as it does not only involve procedural rules under Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court but also the provisions of Republic Act (RA) 10752 (The Right-of-Way Act) and RA 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 or the EPIRA Law).
One supervening event Amular cited was OCA Circular No. 113-2019 dated July 16, 2019. The Office of the Court Administrator required all RTC judges and clerks of court to comply with requirements, specifically the deposit to the court of the amount equivalent to the sum of 100 percent of the value of the land based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue issued not more than three years prior to the filing of the expropriation complaint pursuant to RA 10752.
He further noted that consumers of Iloilo City filed their complaint-in-intervention which has been admitted by RTC Branch 35; the parties have yet to file their answer-in-intervention.
The complainants-in-intervention have the right to be heard, Amular stressed.
Amular added, too, that there is a pending petition for review on certiorary before the Second Division of the Supreme Court filed by MORE Power in connection with the decision of RTC Mandaluyong declaring section 10 and 17 of RA 11212 (MORE Power’s franchise law) as void and unconstitutional.
Amular noted the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that the issue of constitutionality would be like a prejudicial question to the expropriation case as it would be a waste of time and effort to appoint evaluation commissioners and debate the market value of the property sought to be condemned if it turns out that the condemnation was illegal.
“The question of constitutionality is of paramount importance in the interest of legal and procedural fairness in view of the novelty of the case,” said Amular.
“Indeed, the ruling of the Honorable SC will guide this Court whether the authority conferred upon the plaintiff as a quasi-public corporation by Congress has been correctly or properly exercised by it,” he added.
As to MORE Power’s motion for voluntary inhibition, Amular said his conscience is clear.
“By performing its mandate under Article 2029 of the Civil Code whereby the Court shall endeavor to persuade the litigants in a civil case to agree upon some fair compromise is not bias or prejudice to disqualify himself,” Amular emphasized.
He added that the chamber conference was transparent to enable the parties to talk and the date of it was even posted in the bulletin board outside the courtroom.
“Indeed, the SC held that it is not, however, an indispensable prerequisite although it is advisable that efforts to secure an amicable settlement be first made before condemnation proceedings be instituted,” Amular stressed.
PECO’s franchise as sole power distributor in Iloilo City expired on Jan. 19 this year. It failed to secure an extension from Congress over several issues such as poor customer relations, erroneous billings, power failures, high rates, etc.
Congress instead granted MORE Power a 25-year franchise to distribute electricity in the city. President Rodrigo Duterte signed into law this legislative franchise law, RA 11212, on Feb. 14 this year.
HNew to the power distribution business, however, and with no equipment of its own, MORE Power sought to take over PECO’s power distribution system, thus it filed an expropriation case.
PECO, the sole power distributor here for over 95 years, is fighting off the expropriation case.
It has also questioned the constitutionality of RA 11212. This case is now with the Supreme Court awaiting decision./PN
