ILOILO City – The Supreme Court’s (SC) Second Division denied Panay Electric Co.’s (PECO) petition seeking to move outside of this city the expropriation case filed against it by MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power).
It dismissed as unmeritorious PECO’s argument that public scrutiny could affect the expropriation proceedings.
The case is currently being heard by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35 presided by Judge Daniel Antonio Gerardo Amular.
“The mere possibility of prejudice is not sufficient to justify a transfer of venue, as aptly argue(d) by respondent MORE,” stressed the high court in a ruling dated Dec. 4, 2019 yet.
Curiously, just this Jan. 2 Amular issued a statement suggesting that the expropriation case be transferred outside the jurisdiction of the RTC of Iloilo because it has become “too politicized.”
Amular may not have known of the Supreme Court resolution yet when he issued the statement.
MORE Power is the new power distribution franchisee in this city. It wants to take over the power distribution system of PECO, the franchisee for the past 95 years but which failed to secure a renewal or extension from Congress after its franchise expired on Jan. 19, 2019.
PECO is fighting off the expropriation case and also challenged in court the legality of MORE Power’s 25-year franchise that President Rodrigo Duterte signed into law on Feb. 14, 2019.
“PECO has not presented adequate proof that the accompanying publicity (of the expropriation case) may cause prejudice to it,” the Supreme Court stressed.
Also, according to the high court, PECO “failed to prove that a miscarriage of justice would arise in the event that the subject case continues to be heard in the RTC of Iloilo City.”
As to the argument on the possibility that two coequal courts (Iloilo City and Mandaluyong City RTCs) would render conflicting decisions, the Supreme Court said the same had been rendered moot and academic by the fact that the Mandaluyong RTC already rendered its judgment that is now pending review by the high court upon the petition of MORE Power.
Sought for his reaction, MORE Power president Roel Castro said the Supreme Court order denying the petition of PECO to transfer venue of the expropriation case is “self-explanatory.”
“Anyone who reads it will understand the meaning of it,” said Castro.
In its rejected petition, PECO suggested that the expropriation case be transferred to “any RTC in Metro Manila” or consolidated with its civil case against MORE Power pending at RTC, Branch 209 in Mandaluyong City. But the Supreme Court said it lacked merit.
In July, the RTC in Mandaluyong City declared as void and unconstitutional MORE Power’s franchise for allegedly infringing on the right of PECO to due process and equal protection of the law.
MORE Power asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling of the RTC in Mandaluyong City.
On Dec. 3, 2019, the high court issued a Temporary Restraining Order against PECO and the Mandaluyong RTC from implementing the lower court’s decision declaring sections 10 and 17 of Republic Act No. 11212 (MORE Power’s franchise law) as unconstitutional.
Sections 10 and 17 granted MORE Power the power of eminent domain and to expropriate PECO’s assets.
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 an order granting the writ of possession against PECO’s assets before inhibiting herself./PN
