Judge Antonio Gerardo Amular of the Iloilo Regional Trial Court (RTC) believes that the administrative complaint filed against him by MORE Electric and Power Corp. (MORE Power) will not prosper. 

The complaint, according to Amular, is “based on allegations.”

“It is a basic legal precept that he who alleges must prove, and that mere allegations by themselves would not be given weight because it does not amount to evidence,” he said in a statement issued on Thursday, Jan. 2.

MORE Power represented by its legal counsel Atty. Hector P. Teodosio and Chief Executive Officer Roel Castro lodged the complaint before the Supreme Court (SC) in December last year.

The power firm owned by billionaire Enrique Razon Jr. sued Amular for grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Amular handles the expropriation case filed by MORE Power against Panay Electric Co. (PECO), the current power distributor in Iloilo City.

The presiding judge said he had already written the SC’s Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) regarding the complaint.

“In due time, when required, the presiding judge will accordingly answer the allegations with competent and admissible evidence.”

Amular revealed that on Dec. 3, Teodosio approched him and showed a copy of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by the SC en banc, stopping the implementation of the Mandaluyong RTC’s ruling, which declared Sections 10 and 17 of Republic Act (RA) No. 11212 “void and unconstitutional”, and made permanent a TRO it issued on March 14, 2019.

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.

Amular said “thereafter, Teodosio pleaded” to him “to just inhibit himself from the case.”

“The presiding judge inquired from him (Teodosio) why he wanted to inhibit the presiding judge. Atty. Teodosio told the presiding judge that he was being pressured by his client. The presiding judge advised Atty. Teodosio to wait for the SC decision, which his client itself filed before the SC questioning the decision of the Mandaluyong RTC.”

“During the exchange of conversation inside the staff room where several members of the Court’s staff were present and who witnessed and heard the conversation, Atty. Teodosio reasoned out that the presiding judge being his friend, he would not want the ‘friendship’ to be affected. The presiding judge told Atty. Teodosio that the former has no basis to inhibit himself.”

“Sensing that the presiding judge would not budge, Atty. Teodosio showed to the presiding judge a copy of complaint he prepared and told the presiding judge that he has not yet signed the complaint addressed to the Supreme Court.”

“The presiding judge told Atty. Teodosio, ‘Are you trying to blackmail the presiding judge?’ The presiding judge further told Atty. Teodosio that he would be filing a disbarment case against him for his unethical behavior.”

In Nov. 2018, Amular issued an order suspending further proceedings” in the expropriation case filed by MORE Power.

The presiding judge, in his order, said the suspension is “in the interest of judicial fairness, respect to the 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 filed the expropriation case in March 2019 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.

In his statement, Amular said “he has had numerous expropriation cases which were disposed promptly in the past.”

“The present case is a case of first impression. There has been no precedent of this case filed before the entire Philippine judiciary to the best of his knowledge given the present factual setting,” he explained.

“So many legal issues confront the court, hence it is most unfair to charge the court that it is delaying the case,” he added.

Amular suggested to transfer the case outside of the jurisdiction of the Iloilo RTC.

“The case has been observed to have become too politicized,” he said.IMT