ILOILO City – The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 35 has ordered MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power) and Panay Electric Co. (PECO) to desist from making public statements about their ongoing expropriation case. If they won’t, they could be held liable for transgressing the sub judice rule, warned Judge Daniel Antonio Gerardo Amular.
The expropriation case was raffled to Amular’s Branch 35 on Aug. 19.
MORE Power, which has a 25-year power distribution franchise for this city, seeks to take over the power distribution assets of PECO whose franchise expired on Jan. 19, 2019.
The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial proceedings to avoid prejudging an issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice.
A violation of the sub judice rule may render one liable for indirect contempt under Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
Amular’s gag order issued on Aug. 20 covered the two rival power distributors, their counsels and persons acting in their behalf “to avoid any improper conduct tending directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.”
The goal of the gag order, according to Amular, was to insulate the court from extraneous influence.
MORE Power and PECO’s expropriation case has two stages. The first stage is concerned with the determination of the authority of MORE Power to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise.
In this stage, RTC Branch 37 ruled in favor of MORE Power. On Aug. 14, Judge Yvette Go granted its application for a Writ of Possession against PECO’s assets.
The second phase is the determination by the court of the “just compensation of the property sought to be taken.” This stage was raffled to Amular’s court on Monday after Go inhibited herself from the case right after granting MORE Power a Writ of Possession.
In issuing the gag order, Amular said the court needed time to go over the voluminous records of the case.
He also noted that he had been hearing over the radio pronouncements made by the counsels of both parties.
“Clearly, the comments and disclosures over the air pertaining to the judicial proceedings by counsels of both parties may subject this Court into disrepute or disrespect, considering the complicated issues brought by the developments in other judicial forum,” read part of his gag order.
In seeking the expropriation of PECO’s assets, MORE Power cited Section 10 of its franchise law, Republic Act 11212, and Rule 67 Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court authorizing it to take possession of, exercise control over, and manage and operate all of the power distribution assets in Iloilo City.
The expropriation of PECO’s assets in its favor, according to MORE Power, would allow it to “immediately address and correct poor services, overcharging, frequent brownouts, expensive rates, old and unsafe facilities and practices, and other service deficiencies that this city’s power users and consumers had long suffered.”
In recent years, PECO faced mounting criticism from dissatisfied consumers complaining of erroneous billing, poor customer service and high rates, among others.
Last month, however, PECO managed to secure a favorable ruling from RTC Mandaluyong City.
In a decision dated July 1, Judge Monique Quisumbing-Ignacio ruled that Section 10 (Right of Eminent Domain) and Section 17 (Transition of Operations) of RA 11212 infringed on PECO’s right to due process and equal protection of the law, and therefore void and unconstitutional./PN
