By Francis Allan L. Angelo
The Iloilo Regional Trial Court Branch 23 will tackle the just compensation aspect of the expropriation case filed by MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power) against Panay Electric Co. (PECO) after the issues raised against the writ of possession (WOP) issued to the Razon-led firm was settled.
This is one of the points raised in the order issued by RTC Judge Emerald K. Requina-Contreras on April 16, 2020 denying the motion of Panay Electric Co. (PECO) to enforce her earlier directive to maintain power distribution operations with the latter even if MORE Power already took over certain distribution assets on Feb. 28, 2020.
To recall, the RTC granted on Feb 20, 2020 MORE Power’s plea for a writ of possession (WOP) so it can take over and operate PECO’s distribution assets.
The WOP is part of MORE Power’s expropriation case against PECO after the former secured its congressional franchise via Republic Act 11212. The expropriation case sought to allow MORE Power to take over PECO assets upon payment of just compensation valued at more than P481 million.
While the court turned over certain assets to MORE Power, it issued an addendum on Feb 28 directing that operations of the assets will remain with PECO while MORE Power personnel will just observe as part of the transition phase.
The addendum was predicated on the fact that PECO, while its franchise has expired, still has a valid provisional certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) from the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), which MORE Power lacks despite having a valid congressional franchise.
According to the April 16 order of Judge Contreras, “The addendum to the WOP was made precisely because of the court’s apprehension of a possible massive interruption of power supply or worse, blackout in the city, in the event of any form of resistance in the process.”
“To be clear, it was not designed to favor any of the parties, but for the protection of the public and, taking into account that PECO had the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN). The court was then captured in a scenario where one (MORE) has the franchise but No CPCN, and the other (PECO) has No franchise but with a provisional CPCN. The addendum, as a matter of fact, served its purpose well,” the order reads.
The matter was only settled when MORE Power presented a photocopy of a letter from ERC Chairperson and CEO Agnes VST Devanadera, which stated that it already revoked PECO’s CPCN, “the very factor that was holding back the court to immediately turn over the full operation to MORE.”
The court invited ERC officials to Iloilo City to shed light on the letter but because of the lockdown amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, they were unable to fly to the city.
Despite Devanadera’s letter declaring MORE Power as the sole power distributor in the city, the court noted that the “confusion of the consumers such as where to pay their bills, where to report any trouble and other concerns, remain.”
It then took notice of the ERC Order dated March 5, 2020 which attested that:
-MORE Power has taken over five substations formerly owned by PECO;
-MORE Power has prepared for all other aspects related to electricity distribution;
– has Power Supply contracts in place with four power suppliers that will ensure uninterrupted supply of electricity, sufficient to serve the consumers in the franchise area; and
-ERC has verified MORE’s full readiness and capability in aspects of development, operation, and maintenance of distribution systems.
The same ERC order also revoked PECO’s CPCN and issued a provisional authority to MORE Power to run power distribution services in the city.
The RTC said the ERC order has rendered “moot the issues raised and actions sought to be taken by PECO in its Urgent Ex-Parte Motion, as well as in the Omnibus Motion, pertinent to the issue on the operation of the distribution system.”
“I understand that there are still legal remedies being undertaken by PECO, but until then the court leaves it to the ERC the matters which is no longer within the ambit of the court’s jurisdiction. The court recognizes the Energy Regulatory Commission as the lone quasi-judicial entity which has the sole jurisdiction over the operation of electric distribution utilities,” Judge Contreras said in her order.
Citing the ERC order and PECO’s own repeated assertions, that “No CPCN, No operation,” the court said it “finds no cogent reason to touch the issue that has been ruled by the ERC.”
The court also shares the position of the ERC “that interruptions, confusions and possible chaos may arise should possession and control of the distribution assets be lodged in one entity and yet the operation is lodged in another.”
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, to avoid any further confusion from the consumers, the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion of PECO is DENIED. The earlier Omnibus Motion (to Enforce the Addendum ad Cautelam) dated March 3, 2020, being related to the instant motion is likewise denied,” the RTC order said.
The RTC said it will push through with the second phase of the expropriation case, which is the discussion of the just compensation for PECO’s assets, and directed the rival firms to nominate three commissioners each.
“Finally, it is the opinion of the court that PECO should still collect the payments for the billing period from February 7 to March 6, 20201 and MORE to collect payments for the consumption from March 7, 2020 onwards, for continuity.”
