ILOILO City – Why did the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 37 grant MORE Electric and Power Corp.’s (MORE Power) petition for a writ of possession to take over the power distribution assets of Panay Electric Co. (PECO)?
The essential requisites were met, according to the court.
In her 13-page order dated Aug. 14, Judge Yvette Go also denied PECO’s Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam (to dismiss and/or archive MORE Power’s petition).
Go stressed two undisputed facts: one, 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; and two, 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.
Go also addressed an issue raised by PECO – “judicial courtesy” because RTC Mandaluyong already struck down as unconstitutional two sections of MORE Power’s RA 11212, Section 10 (Right of Eminent Domain) and Section 17 (Transition of Operations).
According to Go, “this Court cannot also renege in its duty and obligation not to proceed with the expropriation case, more so that the Mandaluyong (court’s) judgment is not even final yet.”
She also stressed that there is no restraining order or an injunctive writ issued by a higher court against RTC Branch 37 to stop proceeding with the expropriation case.
“Hence, with the foregoing reasons, this Court has also to perform its bounden duty to go on with the expropriation case until and unless it is enjoined or a final decision declaring the provisions null and void is issued,” read part of Go’s ruling.
The judge also noted that the case involved electricity, a public utility and a public necessity. The proceedings must thus be heard with dispatch to ensure uninterrupted electricity distribution in the city, she stressed.
Go also clarified the stages to be observed in an expropriation of property.
The first stage is concerned with the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise. It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the action, “of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be condemned, for public use and purpose, described in the complaint upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.”
The second phase is the determination by the court of the “just compensation of the property sought to be taken.”
This is done by the court with the assistance of not more than three commissioners.
Expropriation is said to be done only upon the completion of these two stages.
After issuing her order granting MORE Power’s petition for a writ of possession to take over the power distribution assets of PECO, Go inhibited from continuously hear the main case of expropriation.
Yesterday at 2 p.m., RTC raffled MORE Power’s expropriation complaint against PECO and it went to Branch 35 of Judge Daniel Antonio Gerardo Amular.
In seeking the expropriation of PECO’s assets, MORE Power cited Section 10 of RA 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./PN
