SAN MIGUEL CORP. (SMC) said on Monday it was standing by its statement that its unit South Premiere Power Corp. (SPPC) had not received monthly billing statements from state-led Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corp. (PSALM) that indicate an alleged deficiency claim amounting to P23.94 billion.
The conglomerate was responding to PSALM’s earlier statement that SPPC could not feign ignorance of its payables because it received monthly billings.
In the statement, SPPC said it is updated in its payments to the government agency based on monthly billing statements that it sends, using SPPC’s legal position on, and computation of, generation payments.
It said the same monthly billing statements neither include nor substantiate the deficiency claim amounting to P23.94 billion as of December 2019.
SPPC said it learned of the alleged deficiency from news articles quoting PSALM.
SPPC also maintained that it is not “delinquent”as claimed by PSALM. To date, the company said it had made P314.6 billion in payments, consisting of P73.9 billion in regular, fixed monthly payments and P240.7 billion in generation charges.
SPPC and PSALM have a pending court dispute concerning differences in computing generation payments
While PSALM is basing generation payments on the wholesale electricity spot market (WESM) prices, SPPC believes that selling its capacity there would have put the company in violation of provisions of their contract approved by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) and designed specifically to protect consumers from volatile and higher electricity prices in the WESM.
SMC also said that the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals (CA) have already ruled that a regional trial court has jurisdiction over the pending dispute between the conglomerate’s unit and a state agency.
SMC was responding to Leyte Rep. Vicente S.E. Veloso III, who earlier questioned the Mandaluyong Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) jurisdiction over the case, saying power-related issues should be handled by the ERC not the lower court.
The dispute between SPPC and PSALM centers on the computation of generation charges under the Ilijan power contract.
SMC cited the Mandaluyong-RTC’s order of Sept. 24, 2018, where it ruled that the lower court has jurisdiction over the case, which was questioned by PSALM through a petition for certiorari that was filed with the CA.
On Aug. 23, 2019, the CA dismissed PSALM’s petition, it said. PSALM has filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of its petition.
SMC said on Sept. 28, 2015, the Mandaluyong RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction prohibiting PSALM from terminating the independent power producer administrator agreement while the case is pending.
The listed diversified company further narrated that PSALM questioned the injunction with the CA through a petition for certiorari only to be denied by the CA. The agency then appealed the CA decision before the Supreme Court.
It said through a resolution issued on March 4, 2019, the High Court denied the appeal “because PSALM failed to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its decision.”
On Aug. 5, 2019, the Supreme Court’s resolution became final and executory.
In the same release, SPPC said Section 43(u) of Republic Act No. 9136 or the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA) on the original and exclusive quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the ERC is clarified by Rule 3, Section 4(n) of the EPIRA implementing rules and regulations (IRR).
The IRR provides that the ERC has original and exclusive quasi-judicial jurisdiction over disputes between or among energy sector participants, only if such disputes relate to the ERC’s powers, functions and responsibilities provided for in the EPIRA and the EPIRA-IRR.
It said as indicated in the EPIRA and the EPIRA-IRR, the issue between SPPC and PSALM is outside of the powers, functions and responsibilities of the ERC.
