|
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Ong: Peco's disgrace, consumer's victory
By Ted Aldwin Ong
MY fellow electricity consumers all over Iloilo City was given a breathing space after the Court of Appeals upheld the series of decisions issued by the Energy Regulatory Commission in favor of the consumers.
The decision coming from ERC and CA delivers a clear message to the management of Panay Electric Company - stop overcharging the consumers. In a recent forum I attended, I was asked what is the impression of the business sector with the CA ruling since they have been sympathetic and supportive of Peco's "black-out scare" the previous months?
I was not the right person to answer in behalf of the business sector and groups like the Iloilo Business Club, the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, hotels like Sarabia Manor, and hospitals like Iloilo Doctor's and other business people who are either close family ties or just plain sympathizers of the Cacho family - the owners of Peco.
What I am sure about is this, the business sector will greatly benefit from the decision for they are among the biggest electricity consumers of Peco. What makes them silent in this issue is simple - they have the resources to pay their monthly bills compared to many residential consumers.
For all its worth, it is the poor residential consumers that is celebrating because 30 percent reduction for them could mean food in the table, transportation fare in going to work place and to school for students, medicine, tuition fees, and other social services that government have neglected to provide its people.
That is how Peco deprived the Ilonggo consumers of a quality life just to avail of their very expensive service as a "public utility." What an injustice to the helpless Ilonggos. In olden times, owners of Peco could have been burned at stake or stoned to death in a public plaza.
Since we live in modern times, we follow "due process." It just so happened that this due process works to our favor this time. But who knows what's next?
As far as I am concerned, this padding issue in their generation charge is just one of the "millions" of issues that private owners of public utility has institutionalized just to earn more than what the law allows them to. And this issue in not only isolated to Peco. The owner of Meralco in Manila is doing it and so are the other owners of electric distribution companies in other parts of the country.
Reading the decision of the CA is like a slap in the face if I were the owner and legal attorney of Peco. The 25-page decision upheld the arguments presented by the Freedom from Debt Coalition through its chairperson lawyer Roming Gerochi to the ERC.
The ERC likewise defended its decision and order to Ninth Division of CA with the comments of the solicitor general that the arguments of Gerochi and FDC were not only on the right course, it is legally sound.
All the arguments raised by Peco were met with utter reversal. Here are the arguments:
Peco: the ERC committed "grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" when it promulgated certain portions of Peco's rate schedule" in violation and complete contravention of existing laws and established jurisprudence.
CA: it is a long established doctrine that findings of administrative or regulatory agencies (referring to ERC) on matters that are within their technical area of expertise are "generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence."
Peco: the ERC committed grave abuse of discretion when it considered Peco to have engaged in forum-shopping and when it considered PECO's to Second Motion for Reconsideration as pro-forma.
CA: the We hold the ERC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding Peco guilty of forum-shopping in its second assailed Order dated April 25, 2005.
Lawyers can understand better the legal explanation of the CA but what the heck, here it is: at the time Peco filed its Motion for Leave to File Attached Second Motion for Reconsideration and Second Motion for Reconsideration on March 7, 2005, the 17th Division of CA has not yet granted Peco's Notice for Withdrawal of Rule 43 Petition for Review filed on March 4, 2005. It was only on June 2, 2005 that the 17th Division granted the withdrawal of PECO and only after they submitted its written conformity to the withdrawal as required in the Court's Resolution of April 5, 2005.
Peco: the ERC committed grave abuse of discretion when it brashly and wrongfully considered Peco's Second Motion for Reconsideration as pro forma.
CA: We also find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the Second Motion for Reconsideration being pro forma, that the arguments advanced by Peco were already considered and clearly resolved by the ERC in its Decision and Order sought to be reconsidered.
Conclusion: the petition is denied due course and dismissed. For the Ilonggo consumers - standing ovation and massive applause. For Peco - ouch! (Comments to peoplesdomain@yahoo.com)
(October 4, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
|
