ILOILO City – MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power), owned by gaming magnate Enrique Razon, is bullying one of Iloilo’s strictest and fairest judges with misleading allegations for its own benefit. This was the response of Marcelo Cacho, Panay Electric Co. (PECO) head of Public Engagement and Government Affairs, following the filing of administrative charges in the Supreme Court by MORE Power against the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 35, Daniel Antonio Gerardo 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,” said Cacho.
MORE wants to tell the judiciary they won’t take “no” for an answer, “or else they will pressure you and file cases against you,” he added.
“MORE Power’s administrative cases set a deadly precedent in that companies can just file complaints against judges who do not rule in their favor,” said Cacho, noting 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 Iloilo, through Presiding Judge Yvette Go, earlier granted a writ of possession in favor of MORE Power despite the pendency of MORE’s own appeal before the Supreme Court. 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 Go inhibited herself from the case, Amular took over and, later on, issued an Order suspending the expropriation case filed by MORE to take over PECO’s power distribution facilities.
The Amular 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.”
Amular said he was suspending proceedings “in the interest of judicial fairness, respect to the Honorable Supreme Court, and for practical considerations.”
He also denied the Motion to inhibit himself.
“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,” said Cacho.
The SC stopped the Mandaluyong RTC from enforcing its ruling that declared the franchise granted by Congress to MORE Power and the expropriation of the assets of PECO as unconstitutional. This latest SC ruling effectively overturned their own previous ruling that upheld the same Mandaluyong RTC decision.
While MORE Power has secured a copy of the said Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), it took time for PECO to receive its copy, according to Cacho.
Meanwhile, Atty. Estrella Elamparo, senior partner at Divina Law, revealed they were 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 constitutionality of the expropriation,” Elamparo stressed.
She also noted that the standing jurisprudence (JM Tuason vs 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 Power should not insinuate that the Dec. 3 TRO in any way affects the RTC Iloilo proceedings. TROs can only restrain an act that has not yet been accomplished, she stressed.
It cannot mandate the performance of an act, such as the issuance of a writ of possession or continuation of expropriation proceedings, according to Elamparo.
She also revealed that they 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./PN
