• GILBERT P. BAYORAN
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 42 in Bacolod City has ordered the dismissal of a civil case filed by several petitioners against officials of the Central Negros Electric Cooperative (Ceneco) and Negros Electric Power Corporation (NEPC), in relation to the joint venture agreement (JVA) between the two entities.
The petitioners, Negros Consumers Watch (NCW) and Convenors of Anti-Ceneco JVA Coalition (ACJC), represented by Pepito Pico and Rommel Pido, respectively, have sought the nullity of the JVA and the issuance of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO) from the court.
Last Aug. 22, the petitioners alleged that the court has jurisdiction on the petition for declaratory relief, with prayer for the issuance of TRO and permanent injunction.
RTC Branch 42 Presiding Judge Maria Lina Gonzaga, in her seven- page order, dated Sept. 1, said a perusal of the JVA in question does not show any ambiguity, which requires judicial construction.
“If the terms and conditions of the agreement are being questioned for being disadvantageous to the consumers and the Ceneco members, declaratory relief is not a remedy,” Gonzaga said.
She also stressed that the issues are best raised before the National Electrification Administration (NEA), which is equipped with the proper legal and technical team to discuss the loopholes.
While petitioners claimed that NEA has no jurisdiction over declaratory relief or issuance of TRO or permanent injunction is true, the action of declaratory relief was prematurely filed, the judge said. Gonzaga further said that the issuance of TRO or permanent injunction had also become moot due to supervening events, such as NEA’s intervention relative to the questioned plebiscites, with results already out and counted, hence, “there is nothing left for the Court to restrain”.
As to the issue on exhaustion of administrative remedies, the judge said “prior to resort to the Courts, parties must first seek recourse from the administrative agency, which has the technical expertise over the issues”.
“Based on the foregoing, the Court is indeed bereft of jurisdiction. This case is, as it should be, dismissed without prejudice,” Gonzaga added. | GB
