By Vann Marlo M. Villegas, Reporter

PANAY ELECTRIC Co., Inc. (PECO) has asked the Court of Appeals in Cebu to stop the take over of its power distribution assets in Iloilo City by MORE Electric and Power Corp. after a local court issued a writ of possession in favor of the Razon-led company.

“We also filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals-Visayas, questioning the order granting the writ of possession. We are taking all the remedies that we could,” said PECO legal counsel Estrella C. Elamparo said in a press conference on Tuesday in Manila.

She said the petition for a temporary order (TRO) was filed on Thursday last week to stop the writ of possession order issued by Iloilo Regional Trial Court Branch 23.

MORE, a company led by businessman Enrique K. Razon, Jr., has the franchise to distribute power in Iloilo City through Republic Act No. 11212, which was signed into law by President Rodrigo R. Duterte on Feb. 14, 2019.

PECO, which is led by a fifth generation member in the family business, held that right since 1923, but its application for franchise renewal, which expired on Jan. 19 last year, was denied by Congress.

Ms. Elamparo said PECO also filed a supplemental motion stating the events that transpired when the writ of possession was enforced.

“We reiterated our prayer for TRO on account of the gravity of the situation and to prevent further this possession,” she said.

Ms. Elamparo said that in the supplemental motion, PECO prayed for a status quo ante order or to maintain the “last peaceable status before the controversy erupted and that was when PECO was in complete possession.”

In its 26-page petition, PECO said proceedings of the expropriation case remain suspended as the suspension order has not been lifted.

Presiding Judge Daniel Antonio Gerardo Amular in November last year suspended the proceedings due to the pendency of the case with the Supreme Court (SC).

But Judge Emerald K. Requina-Contreras of Regional Trial Court Branch 23 issued an order on Jan. 16, 2020, saying the re-raffling of the case and Mr. Amular’s “voluntary inhibition” had deemed abandoned his earlier order to suspend the proceedings.

PECO maintained that voluntary inhibition and lifting of suspension order are “two different acts such that one cannot be simply inferred from the other.”

“Indeed, how could Judge Amular abandon his earlier order of suspension when no party even filed a motion for reconsideration or availed of other remedy to question the same. Truth be told, the said Order had become final because respondent MORE did not assail the same,” it said.

“Instead of moving for reconsideration of the suspension order, respondent MORE simply moved for the inhibition of then Judge Amular while publicly announcing the filing of an administrative complaint against the latter,” it added.

PECO also claimed that its right to due process was violated with the issuance of the court order despite the suspension of the proceedings.

Its right against equal protection and unlawful taking of property was also infringed as there is still a pending case with the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of some provisions of MORE’s franchise.

It also argued that there is a need for the TRO as this could prevent irreparable injury.

“Furthermore, the intended dispossession of petitioner’s properties will not just result in the loss of decades’ worth of investments in capital, personnel, technical equipment and offices; it will cause no less than the demise of petitioner because it will no longer have any business to speak of,” it said.

PECO earlier asked a Mandaluyong trial court to declare unconstitutional provisions in MORE’s franchise for infringing its right to due process and equal protection. Its petition was granted.

MORE raised the issue to SC, praying for a TRO on the ruling of the Mandaluyong court but was denied in the decision level. The SC en banc, on the other hand, granted the petition of MORE and issued a TRO. PECO filed a motion to lift the order.

Despite the Mandaluyong court’s ruling, MORE filed an expropriation case before the Iloilo court. Ms. Elamparo said six judges had handled the case but four of them had inhibited.

Before Mr. Amular’s inhibition, he suspended the expropriation case because of the pending case in the SC. Ms. Requina-Contreras issued the writ of possession on Feb. 20, 2020, which was the basis for MORE’s takeover of PECO’s assets last week.

“We were shocked when we received the order because there was a suspension order from the same Iloilo court and the case was also already with the SC,” Ms. Elamparo said in a statement, adding that PECO filed a motion to clarify the coverage of the writ the next day after it received the order.

MORE on Friday announced its takeover of PECO’s assets after the issuance of the writ of possession.

Ms. Elamparo then said the takeover was “highly irregular” because of the pending case in the high court.

In Iloilo City, Ms. Requina-Contreras has ordered the two companies to submit their respective transition timelines and stop releasing advertisements as well as statements to media that could damage and undermine the court.

In a two-page order dated March 2, the judge said that on Feb. 29, MORE announced through advertisements that it had started operating in Iloilo City and set that day as the electricity billing cut-off.

This means that the company started reading the meters of consumers on Saturday, which will be reflected in the next billing period.

Ms. Contreras, however, said MORE should wait until the expropriation case reaches final resolution.

“MORE already made announcements, on broadcast and social media that they are now in full operation of the distribution facilities of Iloilo City. MORE is therefore, ordered to REMOVE all the ads pertaining to its full operation pending the resolution of the foregoing,” she said.

The transition timeline should include turnover dates, accounting records, list of consumers, and other documents relating to resources and operations.

On the gag order, which was originally issued by Mr. Amular who later inhibited from the expropriation case, Ms. Contreras told PECO and MORE “not to resort to any form of propaganda that undermines the integrity and credibility of the court.”

She discussed at length the “malicious statements on air” of PECO legal counsel Ms. Elamparo about an “alleged meeting with the judge of a certain MORE personality the day before the writ was served, alluding to the court’s conspiracy with the Plaintiff.”

Ms. Contreras said the court would deal separately with Ms. Elamparo and her statement, which would not be taken against PECO in the pending case.

“Immune to this form of misbehavior of counsels, whenever the judgment is adverse to their client, undersigned is not dissuaded to further hear the case with utmost impartiality. The behavior of Atty. Elamparo will not be taken against PECO as it will be dealt with by the court accordingly,” the order read. — with Emme Rose S. Santiagudo

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR