CA may stop suspension orders vs ERC commissioners

MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) may still stop the second suspension order issued by the Office of the Ombudsman against four Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) commissioners, which the Palace ordered to immediately implement.

A court official said the CA may still act on the petition filed last month by ERC commissioners Alfredo Non, Gloria Victoria Yap-Taruc, Josefina Patricia Asirit and Geronimo Sta. Ana and issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) or status quo ante order (SQA) on the latest suspension order.

The insider, who spoke anonymously due to lack of authority to speak for the appellate court, said the ombudsman’s directive to suspend them for three months without pay could still be stopped or even reversed.

The decision stemmed from the complaint filed by the consumer group National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms Inc. (Nasecore) for syndicated estafa and grave misconduct, among other allegations, against the four officers.

“Even if the suspension order is implemented, the Court may grant temporary relief and issue an SQA to stop the implementation. That would mean the four commissioners will go back to their status prior to the suspension, which means they could return to their posts pending resolution of the petition,” the source explained to The STAR.

The court official made the clarification after the Palace issued an order last Friday to immediately implement the ombudsman’s suspension order against the four.

“In accordance with Section 27(1) of Republic Act 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989, and Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedures of the OMB, the aforementioned decision is immediately executory and may not be interrupted by any motion, appeal, or petition that may be filed by the respondents, unless otherwise ordered by the ombudsman or by any court of competent jurisdiction,” read the memorandum signed by Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea.

Last June 13, the four ERC officials filed a 41-page petition before the CA to ask for a TRO, which the court has not issued so far.

But earlier this year, they were granted a TRO on the one-year suspension order, which was the first to be handed down by the ombudsman against them for favoring several power firms in a competitive selection process.

Using similar arguments when they were able to get a TRO, the four ERC officials this time argued that the anti-graft office committed grave abuse of discretion when it penalized them for simple neglect of duty when they tolerated the misuse of Bill Deposits (BDs) by allowing its commingling with the capital or operation cost of Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) contrary to the purpose for which the BD was established – as guarantee for the payment of bills.

The ombudsman also faulted them after they continuously refrained from strictly implementing rules defining the nature of BDs as “mere guarantee in payment of bills” which must be returned upon termination of the distribution utility’s service.  

“There was no evidence presented by Nasecore showing that the petitioners as commissioners of the ERC are not strictly implementing the rules on bill deposit. The ombudsman’s conclusion on this matter is only based on speculation and is taken only out of thin air, so to speak,” they claimed.

But the ombudsman gave credence to the Nasecore complaint for syndicated estafa and grave misconduct against the ERC commissioners, as well as several Meralco executives, over the alleged unauthorized use and utilization of consumers’ BDs by distribution utilities; the discriminatory fixing of interests by the ERC; and the non-crediting by Meralco of the interests earned by the BDs in favor of consumers. 

Although the criminal charge was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, the ombudsman referred to the Commission on Audit (COA) the conduct of an audit on the BDs collected by Meralco from consumers. 

This is the second time the ombudsman has ordered the suspension of the four ERC commissioners. The first was a one-year suspension order “for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service aggravated by simple misconduct and simple neglect of duty” for allegedly excluding Meralco and other firms from competitive selection process (CSP) meant to “elicit the best price” for consumers. 

They were also charged with violation of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan.

The case stemmed from allegations that the ERC officials gave due preference to Meralco and its power supply agreements with affiliated power generation companies by extending the deadline for compliance of the CSP.