ILOILO City – The expropriation case of MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power) against Panay Electric Co. (PECO) has become too politicized, according to Judge Daniel Antonio Gerardo Amular of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo, Branch 35. “For the best interest of the parties” he suggested that the case be transferred outside the jurisdiction of the RTC of Iloilo “to be tried and heard by the designated judged therein.”
Amular released this statement yesterday in response to the publicly announced administrative complaint filed against him by MORE Power president Roel Castro and legal counsel Hector Teodosio before the Supreme Court on Dec. 12, 2019.
Castro and Teodosio accused Amular of grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law and violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics. The manner with which Amular presided over the expropriation case did not sit well with them. They also sought the judge’s inhibition from the case.
CASE WITH NO PRECEDENT
Amular denied delaying the expropriation case.
His court has had numerous expropriation cases disposed promptly, he said, but PECO-MORE Power’s “is a case of first impression.”
To the best of his knowledge, according to Amular, there has been “no precedent of this case ever filed before the entire Philippine judiciary…given the present factual setting.”
“So many legal issues confront the court, hence it is most unfair to charge the court that it is delaying the case,” Amular stressed.
It is the duty of the court to see to it that the law is properly and correctly observed, according to the judge, and that he is always mindful of what is required.
He cited Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, Section 1 of which specifically provides that “Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently on the bases of their assessment of facts and accordance with the conscientious understanding of the law, free of any extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”
ON ADMIN CASE
“So that the public will know and understand, the administrative complaint as publicized is based on allegations. It is a basic precept that he who alleges must prove, and that mere allegations by themselves would not be given weight because it does not amount to evidence,” according to Amular.
He also stressed that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every irregular or erroneous order or decision issued by a judge where a judicial remedy is available such as motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari.
Disciplinary proceedings against a judge are not complementary or suppletory to, nor a substitute for these judicial remedies whether ordinary or extraordinary, stressed Amular.
“For obviously, if subsequent developments prove the judge’s challenged act to be correct, there would be no occasion to proceed against him at all,” he pointed out.
To hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision rendered, assuming he has erred, “would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position doubly unbearable,” Amular added, citing the case Philip See, Complainant vs Judge Rolando D. Mislag, presiding judge, RTC Branch 167 in Pasig City.
WHAT WENT BEFORE
Amular recalled that on Dec. 3, 2019 after he conducted a Judicial Dispute Resolution Proceedings of two civil cases, Teodosio showed him a copy of the Supreme Court-issued Temporary Restraining Order directing RTC Branch 209 in Mandaluyong City and PECO to cease and desist from implementing Branch 209’s July 1, 2019 judgement which, among others, declared as void and unconstitutional sections 10 and 17 of Republic Act (RA) 11212 (MORE Power franchise) and made permanent the restraining order dated March 14, 2019.
Amular said he advised Teodosio to wait for the Supreme Court decision on the case questioning the decision of the RTC of Mandaluyong City which MORE Power itself brought to the High Court.
Amular also disclosed that on Dec. 17, 2019 he wrote to the Court Administrator regarding the complaint of Teodosio. He added that in due time, when required, he would answer the allegations “with competent and admissible evidence.”
The judge further stated that on Dec. 11, 2019 he had written the Chief Justice requesting for guidance whether his court can proceed notwithstanding the pending case before the Supreme Court.
In November 2019 Amular suspend proceedings in the expropriation case “in the interest of judicial fairness, respect to the Honorable Supreme Court and for practical considerations.”
Also in his order dated Nov. 18, 2019 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 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 Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 113-2019 dated July 16, 2019. The OCA 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 had been admitted by RTC Branch 35; the parties were then yet to file their answer-in-intervention.
The complainants-in-intervention have the right to be heard, Amular stressed.
Amular added, too, that there was then 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 sections 10 and 17 of RA 11212 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./PN
