The Iloilo City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 35 “suspended further proceedings” in the expropriation case filed by MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power) against Panay Electric Company (PECO).
In an order dated Nov. 18, 2019, Presiding Judge Daniel Antonio Gerardo Amular said the suspension is “in the interest of judicial fairness, respect to the Honorable Supreme Court (SC), and for practical considerations.”
Amular cited OCA Circular No. 113-2019 that “requires all RTC judges and Clerks of Courts to comply with requirements mentioned therein specifically the deposit to the Court of the amount equivalent to the sum of 100 percent of the value of the land based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the BIR (Bureau of Internal Revenue) issued not more than three years prior to the filing of the expropriation complaint pursuant to Republic Act 10752.”
“The consumers of Iloilo City have filed their complaint-in-intervention which has been admitted by this Court. The parties have yet to file their answer-in-intervention. The complainants-in-intervention have the right to be heard,” he added.
MORE Power, a firm controlled by billionaire Enrique Razon Jr.,filed the expropriation case last March to acquire the distribution assets of PECO.
Presently, there is a pending petition for review on certiorari before the SC’s Second Division filed by MORE Power in connection with the Mandaluyong RTC’s decision.
The Mandaluyong RTC declared “void and unconstitutional” Section 10 and 17 of the Republic Act 11212, which grants MORE Power a franchise to operate in Iloilo City.
Section 10 authorizes MORE to exercise the power of eminent domain and acquire such private property as is actually necessary for the realization of the purpose for which the franchise is granted.
Section 17 states the power of MORE, as grantee, to effectively acquire power distribution assets. The distribution assets that exist within the franchise area could only refer to those of PECO.
“According to the SC, the issue of constitutionality would be like a prejudicial question to the expropriation as it would be a waste of time and effort to appoint evaluation commissioners and debate the market value of the property sought to be condemned if it turned-out that the condemnation was illegal,” Amular said.
“The question of constitutionality is of paramount importance in the interest of legal procedural fairness in view of the novelty of the case. Indeed, the ruling of the SC will guide this Court whether the authority conferred upon the plaintiff as a quasi-public corporation by Congress has been correctly and properly exercised by it,” he further said.
The RTC also junked MORE Power’s motion seeking the inhibition of Presiding Judge Daniel Antonio Gerardo Amular from the case for “lack of factual basis.”
“The conscience of the Presiding Judge is clear. By performing its mandate under Article 2029 of the Civil Code whereby the Court shall endeavor to pursuade the litigants in a civil case to agree upon some fair compromise is not bias or prejudice to disqualify himself,” the order stated.
“Indeed, the SC held that it is not, however, an indispensable prerequisite although it is advisable that efforts to secure an amecable settlement be first made before condemnation proceedings be instituted,” Amular stressed.IMT
