ILOILO City – Panay Electric Co. (PECO) filed a motion for reconsideration urging Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 37 to reconsider its ruling granting MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power) a writ of possession against PECO’s power distribution assets.
“It is not too late for the Honorable Court to rectify its grievous mistake,” read part of PECO’s motion for reconsideration filed on Aug.19.
Judge Yvette Go of RTC Branch 37 ruled in favor of MORE Power’s application for a Writ of Possession on Aug. 14.
MORE Power was granted a franchise to operate as a power distribution utility in Iloilo City by legislative fiat, Republic Act (RA) 11212, approved on Feb. 14, 2019.
On the other hand, PECO’s franchise to operate and maintain a power distribution system in the city expired after Jan. 18, 2019 and it failed to secure a new legislative franchise required by the Electric Power Industry Reform Act.
But in its motion for reconsideration, PECO stressed that the RTC of Mandaluyong City already declared sections 10 and 17 of MORE Power’s franchise law (Republic Act 11212) void and unconstitutional and had issued a permanent injunction against the expropriation and takeover of PECO’s properties
Thus, according to PECO, “any attempt to proceed with expropriation, including the issuance of the writ of possession, will be completely baseless and illegal.”
PECO also noted that MORE Power appealed RTC Mandaluyong’s judgment with the Supreme Court and even asked for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against its implementation. To date, however, no TRO had been issued.
“Thus, by issuing the writ of possession, the Honorable Court (RTC Branch 37) completely disregarded the ruling of RTC Mandaluyong and fragrantly betrayed judicial courtesy. Worst, it is defying the authority of no less than the High Tribunal by preempting its ruling. This is a blatant contempt against the highest court of the land,” PECO stressed.
MORE Power, on the other hand, filed an opposition to PECO’s motion for reconsideration on Aug.20.
Among others, it pointed out that the established jurisprudence is that the moment there is an application for a writ of possession, a deposit has been made and the plaintiff has been granted the power of eminent domain, it is a bounden ministerial duty of the expropriation court to grant the writ of possession./PN
As per ruling of RTC Mandaluyong. You can’t expropriate a Private entity that are already functioning for the public service and give to other entity with the same use. It a blatant disregard of the law of eminent domain. In short it is bullying. For MORE to function must be develop its own power and distribution.