CITING their failure to apply for the required exemption from the Department of Energy (DOE) before they entered into the extension of agreement with Kepco Salcon Power Corp. (KSPC) last year, several current and former officials of the Central Negros Electric Cooperative (Ceneco) were given a 30-day suspension by the National Electrification Administration (NEA).
Guilty of simple neglect of duty were Ceneco president Jojit Yap, Board Members Robert Javellana, Martha Joyce Cuenca, Antonio Panique and Fr. Ernie Larida, and former acting general manager Atty. Danny Pondevilla.
The order was signed by NEA members Agustin Maddatu, Rene Gonzales, Emmanuel Juanez and Atty. Alipio Badelles and forwarded to Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi.
Complainant Wennie Sancho, in a statement yesterday, July 12, said that the decision is a victory for the 210, 861 consumers under Ceneco’s franchise area.
Of which, about 129,891 or 61 percent are consumers from Bacolod City, Sancho, who is the secretary general of Power Watch Negros, said.
“Our victory may not be substantial compared to our sacrifices and dangerous risks taken, but with determination and indomitable spirit we have sent a message loud and clear,” he added.
Asked for her comment about the suspension, Yap said they will discuss the matter with their lawyer.
Yap maintained that it was only a light offense because of procedural lapses and carelessness or indifference, adding that there was no adverse effect on the firm’s consumers.
Sancho filed charges including grave misconduct, gross neglect, dishonesty, gross insubordination, conduct prejudicial to the interest of the electric cooperative and its member-consumers, and willful violation or non-compliance to NEA issuance, memoranda and other rules and regulations.
In his complaint, Sancho, who is also an observer of the Third Party Bids and Awards Committee (TPBAC), said the offenses are found under Rule VII or the Offenses and Penalties of the Revised NEA Administrative Rules and Procedures of 2013.
He claimed that the result of the competitive selection process (CSP) conducted by the TPBAC was not implemented due to the interventions made by the Ceneco Board and management.
Sancho added that on April 10 this year, two days before the date of the scheduled bid opening, TPBAC chairman Engineer Norman Pollentes received a letter from the six Ceneco Directors seeking postponement of the opening of bids as scheduled.
Subsequently, another letter from Pondevilla was issued ordering the suspension of the bid opening due to certain concerns of the Board, the complainant added.
On April 12, however, the TPBAC proceeded with the conduct and opening of bids pursuant to TPBAC Bid Bulletin No. 4 and prepared the resolution "recommending the Power Supplier Bid Offer as the Lowest Calculated and Most Responsive Bid for the Procurement of Ceneco's 20-megawatt (MW) Baseload Requirement for 2021 to 2031."
"Despite receipt of such TPBAC Resolution, however, on May 25, for reasons known only to the respondents, TPBAC Resolution No. 21-03 series of 2021 bearing the lowest price of P3.2929 per kilowatt hour (kWh) was neither confirmed nor approved by the respondents," Sancho in his affidavit stated.
Instead, respondents, as majority members of Ceneco Board, passed and approved a different resolution approving the one-year extension of the existing power sales contract with KSPC, he also said.
In reply, the Ceneco officials vehemently denied the administrative charges filed against them as they maintained that the conduct of the bidding has been undertaken in compliance with the policy of DOE with due consideration of the expiring contract with one of its major suppliers that has a contract capacity of 64 MW.
Ceneco officials were able to finalize the term of reference for the bidding for the procurement of 20 MW baseload requirement as recommended by TPBAC and approved by the NEA and DOE.
However, on February 2 last year, consumer group Konsyumer Negros wrote a letter with the subject "Protest against Ceneco's upcoming 20 MW baseload tender and request to be invited as an observer in the tender."
The letter was addressed to Cusi and the agency’s Visayas office, as well as to the NEA questioning the bidding in which Ceneco addressed on February 19, the respondents said.
To appease several other consumer groups regarding the matter, Ceneco met with them and other stakeholders on February 25, they said.
The TPBAC thought that they have resolved the issues raised by Konsyumer Negros after the said meeting and continued with the proceedings of the CSP such as publication of the invitation to bid and held the pre-bid conference on March 8, they added.
The respondents also said that the tender was then scheduled for April 12, 2021. Resolution No. 12892, Series of 2021 was even passed by the Ceneco’s Board of Directors (BOD) on March 23 commending the electric firm’s TPBAC and members for a job well done for the conduct of the bidding.
Three days before the opening of bids, the majority of the Board were informed about the unresolved complaint of Konsyumer Negros questioning the term of reference approved by the Ceneco Board, they said.
The respondents sent a letter to Pondevilla which he communicated to the TPBAC and requested for the postponement of the tender of bids
But in the exercise of their independent authority and discretion, the TPBAC decided to proceed with the opening of bids on 12 April 2021 despite the request for postponement, they said.
Respondents further maintained that their act of holding in abeyance any action on the TPBAC Resolution No. 21-03 Series of 2021 pending the DOE's clarification or guidance is an exercise of prudence and does not amount to grave misconduct.
In deciding the complaint, the NEA explained that they only indict the respondents for simple neglect of duty and not gross neglect because the gravity of negligence in the performance of duty is certainly a matter of evidence and will direct the proper sanction to be imposed.
As to the grave misconduct filed by the complainant, the NEA said that there was no substantial evidence to prove such a claim.*