Ÿþo Rder 2 0

I I i i Republic of the Philippines. I ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSIO San Miguel Avenue, Pasig City IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE POWER SUPPLY AGREEMENT (PSA) BETWEEN CAMARINES SUR IV ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. AND UNIFIED. LEYTE GEOTHERMAL ENERGY, INC. ERC CASE NO. 2016-078 RC CAMARINES SUR IV ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (CASURECO IV) AND UNIFIED LEYTE VOCKE'rED GEOTHERMAL ENERGY, );late: _~EP 0 fl 2016 By~ INC.(ULGEI), -----::~:F..-.----.-.---...•.~ Applicants. x---------------------x ORDER Before the Commission is the Application filed by Camarines Sur IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CASURECOIV) and Unified Leyte Geothermal Energy, Inc. (ULGEI) on 29 April 2016 seeking the Commission's approval of the Power Supply Agreement (PSA) entered into by both parties on 15 December 2015. Prefatorily, it must be recalled that on 20 October 2015, the Commission issued Resolution 13, Series of 20151 (2015 ~esolution) requiring all Distribution Utilities (DUs) to undertake Competitive Selection Process (CSP) for Power Supply Agreements (PSAs) they will enter into for the supply of electricity to their capt\ve markets. , I I Section 4 ofthe Resolution provided that the CSP Requirement. shall not apply to PSAs already filed with the Commission as of 07 November 2015, the date of effectivity of the 2015 'Resolution; All other Applications filed. after the 2015 Resolution took effect were required to comply with the CSPrequirement. I , Entitled "A Resolution Directing all Distribution Utilities (DDs) to Conduct a Competitive Selection Process (CSP) in the Procurement of their Supply to the Captive Market." ERC CASE NO. 2016-078 RC ORDERf06 SEPTEMBER 2016 PAGE20F7 Cognizant of the concerns raised by several stakeholders in the industry as to the effectivity of the 2015 Resolution2, the Commission subsequently issued Resolution 1, Series of 20163 (2016 Resolution) on 15 March 2016. The 2016 Resolution sought to provide more time for DUs and Generation Companies which have already executed their PSAs, or are already in the final stages of their negotiations, to file their application before the Commission by moving the date of effectivity of the CSP Requirement as follows: 1. The effectivity of the CSP Resolution is hereby restated to be 30 April 2016. All PSAs executed on or after the said date shall be required, without exception, to comply with the provisions of the CSP Resolution. xxx This Resolution shall take effect immediately following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. xxx The 2016 Resolution was published on 23 March 2016 and took effect on even date. As previously mentioned, the instant Application was filed on 29 April 2016, well within the extended period provided by the 2016 Resolution. Notably, the PSA that is the subject matter of the Application was executed only on 15 December 2015 and did not undergo CSP. A perusal of the attachments to the Application shows that Applicant CASURECO IV verified and certified the Application dated 28 April 2016 through a single document entitled Verification/ Certification dated 06 April 2016, executed by its General Manager, Veronica T. Briones. On the other hand, Applicant ULGEI, verified and certified the Application by attaching therein a document entitled Verification/ Certification dated 05 April 2016, executed by the Executive Vice President of ULGEI, Ernesto B. Pantangco. , Seventh Whereas clause of Resolution 1, Series of 2016. 3 Entitled "A Resolution Restating the Effectivity of ERe Resolution No. 13, Series of 2015." ERC CASE NO. 2016-078 RC ORDERj06 SEPTEMBER 2016 PAGE30F7 In light of the foregoing defects in the Verifications and Certifications of Applicants, the Application is hereby DISMISSED. DISCUSSION Pursuant to Section 4, Rule 3 in relation to Section 3, Rule 5 of the 2006 Rules of Practice and Procedure (2006 RPP), an Application seeking for the approval of a contract must be verified. Likewise, the same provision requires that the Application contain a sworn Certification of Non-Forum Shopping that is executed in accordance with the Rules of Court. The 1997 Rules of Court (1997 ROC)4likewise provides that a pleading must be verified by an affidavit stating that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.5 . The same rules define a Certification of Non-Forum Shopping as a certification under oath by the principal party in an initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith, (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof, and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.6 Based on the foregoing, when Applicants CASURECOIV and ULGEI executed their respective Verification/Certification on 06 April 2016 and 05 April 2016, the Application dated 28 April 2016 did not yet exist. Considering the affiant in the Verification and Certification affirms, among other things, that he or she has read the entire contents of the Application, it is impossible for an affiant to attest to an Application that does not exist. In the case of Jacinto us. Gumaru, Jr.,? the Supreme Court laid down the rule on liberal treatment of defects in a Verification. Citing 4 Section 5, Rule 1, 2006 RPP provides that the 1997 ROC apply suppletorily to the 2006 RPP. 5 Section 4, Rule 7, 1997 ROC. 6 Section 5, Rule 7, 1997 ROC. 7 G.R. No. 191906, 02 June 2014. ERC CASE NO. 2016-078 RC ORDER/06 SEPTEMBER 2016 PAGE40F7 the case of Altres vs. Empleo8, the Court held that non-compliance with the Verification or defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. A Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition signs the Verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct. On the other hand, the Court laid down a stricter rule as to defects in a Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. The Court emphasized that non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in Verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction, except if compelling reasons are present.9 In the instant case, CASURECO IV's Verification and Certification were consolidated in a single document entitled Verification/ Certification. Similarly, ULGEI submitted a consolidated compliance with the Verification and Certification requirement through a document entitled Verification/ Certification. Consequently, a defect in CASURECOIV's and ULGEI's respective Verifications is also a defect in their respective Certifications. After careful consideration of the contents of the Application and its Annexes, the Commission found no compelling reason to allow CASURECOIV and ULGEI to cure their defective Verification/ Certification. Time and again, the Supreme Court has emphasized that rules are laid down for the benefit of all and should not be made dependent upon a suitor's sweet time and own bidding. Rules should be faithfully complied with and may not be simply ignored for the convenience of a party.lO The Court likewise pointed out that obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is an imperative in order to expect fair results therefrom, and utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.ll As the quasi-judicial agency tasked with the proper implementation and administration of petitions and applications related to energy regulation, it is the Commission's duty to ensure 8 G.R. No. 180986, 10 December 2008. 9 Jacinto vs. Gumaru, Jr., G.R. No. 191906, 02 June 2014. w Anderson vs. Ho, G.R. No. 172590,07 January 2013. n Cosco Philippines vs. Kemper Insurance, G.R. No. 179488, 23 April 2012. ERC CASE NO. 2016-078 RC ORDER/06 SEPTEMBER 2016 PAGESOF7 that applicants and petitioners doing business in its regulated field act with truthfulness and diligence in the filing of their respective pleadings. The casual disregard of such elementary rules of the Commission demonstrated in the instant Application cannot be countenanced as the same would be tantamount to condoning the circumvention of the rules and procedures, and perpetuating a culture of irreverence for the Commission's mandate. Applicants and petitioners must once again be reminded that these rules and procedures are in place to benefit all stakeholders appearing before the Commission and ensure equitable play in the field of energy regulation. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Application is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for non-compliance with the requirements on Verification and Certification on Non-Forum Shopping as provided under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Rules of Court, and existing jurisprudence. SO ORDERED. Pasig City, 06 September 2016. FOR AND BYAUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION: . MAGPALE- ASIRIT Copy furnished: 1. Atty. Glenn G. Hao Hao Dasal Dionola & Associates Counsel/or Applicant Camarines Sur IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CASURECO IV) 304, MJM Properties Building, 650 Jp Rizal Street, Makati City 2. Camarines Sur N Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CASURECO IV) Applicant Talajongon, Tigaon, Camarines Sur 3. Atty. Kathy C. Buenaventura ERC CASE NO. 2016-078 RC ORDER/06 SEPTEMBER 2016 PAGE60F7 Puno and Puno Law Offices Counsel/or Applicant Unified Leyte Geothermal Energy, Inc.

Load more