October 28, 2019 | 12:05 am
THE appellate court’s denial of
Panay Electric Co., Inc.’s (PECO) petition to block the expropriation case
filed by MORE Electric and Power Corp. has been mooted by a ruling by the
Supreme Court (SC), the Iloilo-based electricity distributor said.
“The Court of Appeals case is
already moot and has been overtaken by events because the matter is now with
the Supreme Court, the highest court of the land. The SC has already ruled in
favor of PECO in denying MORE’s prayer for temporary restraining order sought
by MORE,” said Estrella C. Elamparo, legal counsel of PECO, in a statement on
Sunday.
The 95-year-old company made the
statement after MORE distributed to reporters the Oct. 3 decision by the 18th
division of the Court of Appeals (CA) of Cebu City.
“The SC has, in fact, required MORE
to show cause why it should not be declared in contempt for continuing with the
expropriation. A CA ruling cannot supplant a Supreme Court ruling and if MORE
attempts to proceed with the expropriation, it will be answerable to the SC,”
the lawyer said.
PECO said it had filed a motion to
withdraw the petition on Sept. 24 to the CA since the case was already with the
Supreme Court at the time. The company also said the Mandaluyong Regional Trial
Court (RTC) rendered judgment in the petition for declaratory relief on July
11, 2019 declaring Sections 10 and 17 of Republic Act (RA) 11212 void and
unconstitutional “for infringing on PECO’s rights to due process and equal
protection of the law.”
RA 11212 granted MORE a franchise to
establish, operate, and maintain, for commercial purposes and in the public
interest, an electricity distribution system in Iloilo City.
PECO said the Mandaluyong RTC also
enjoined MORE and any of its representatives from enforcing, implementing, and
exercising any of the rights and obligations set forth under RA 11212,
including but not limited to commencing or pursuing the expropriation
proceedings against PECO under the assailed provisions, and from takeover by
MORE of PECO’s distribution assets in the franchise area.
“Consequently, PECO has no
obligation to sell and MORE has no right to expropriate PECO’s assets under
Sections 10 and 17 of RA 11212; and, PECO’s rights to its properties are
protected against arbitrary and confiscatory taking under the relevant portions
of Sections 10 and 17 of RA 11212,” it quoted the Mandaluyong court as saying.
It said MORE questioned the judgment
with the SC through a petition for review on certiorari while seeking a
temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. But in a
resolution dated Aug. 14, 2019, the high court denied MORE’s prayer for a TRO
on the Mandaluyong court resolution.
Before PECO’s statement, MORE came
out with a statement that the Court of Appeals had struck down the bid of PECO
to stop the expropriation of its electricity distribution assets in Iloilo
City.
It said the court ruled to deny
PECO’s petition for a temporary restraining order against the Iloilo City
Regional Trial Court, and another petition for a writ of preliminary injunction
against the same court, after it ordered the expropriation of PECO’s
distribution assets by the new franchise holder MORE.
The CA noted that Congress granted
MORE its franchise as part of its powers under Sections 22 and 27 of Republic
Act. No. 9136, or the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA), which
provided the legal framework for the restructuring of the electric power industry.
It said under EPIRA, only the
Supreme Court can stop the implementation of any portion of that law, which
includes the power of eminent domain by distribution utilities in their
franchise areas. — Victor V. Saulon
No comments:
Post a Comment