Republic of the Philippines

ENERGY REGULATORY COMM Approved for

San Miguel Ave., Pasig City
Posting
www1e:4cph
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION FOR THE
APPROVAL OF THE POWER
SUPPLY AGREEMENT (PSA)
BETWEEN MANILA
ELECTRIC COMPANY
(MERALCO) AND
ATIMONAN ONE ENERGY,
INC. (ME), WITH MOTION
FOR CONFIDENTIAL
TREATMENT OF
INFORMATION,
ERC CASE NO. 2016-092 RC

MANILA ELECTRIC
COMPANY (MERALCO) AND
ATIMONAN ONE ENERGY,
DOOTED
INC. (AtE),
£!:
D&ts: I bOj73

Applicants.
x ----------------------

[II ta la DU ti

Before this Commission for resolution is the Urgent Motion for

Production of Documents (with Prayer for Cross-examination of
Applicants' Witnesses) filed by Intervenor National Association of
Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc. (NASECORE) on 31 July
20. 1 7.

ANTECEDENTS

On 29 April 2016, Applicants Manila Electric Company

(MERALCO) and Atimonan One Energy, Inc. (AiE) filed the instant
Joint Application for the approval of their Power Supply Agreement
(PSA).

The Commission issued an Order with Notice of Public

Hearing, both dated 05 September 2016, setting the case for hearing
on 14 November 2016.
ERC CASE NO. 2016-092 RC
Order/os December 2017
Page 2 of 17

Public hearings were conducted for the instant case on the

following dates:

1. 14 November 2016, for the determination of compliance

with jurisdictional requirements, expository presentation,
pre-trial conference, and evidentiary hearing;

2. 28 November 2016, for the continuation of the

evidentiary hearing; and

3. o6 March 2017, also for the continuation of the

evidentiary hearing.

During the hearing conducted on 14 November 2016, only the

Applicants appeared. NASECORE did not appear but was admitted as
an Intervenor. Likewise, upon the motion of MERALCO, an order of
general default against anyone else not present during the hearing
was issued by the Commission.

The Order dated 14 November 2016 setting the case for hearing
on 28 November 2016 for NASECORE's cross-examination of
Applicants' witness was received by NASECORE on 25 November
2016 via private courier.

However, NASECORE failed to appear during the 28 November

2016 hearing scheduled for its cross-examination of Applicants'
witness despite due notice. Consequently, Applicants jointly moved
for a declaration that NASECORE has waived its right to cross-
examine their witness. Finding the same meritorious, the motion was
granted. Intervenor NASECORE was declared to have waived its right
to cross-examine the Applicants' witness.

The Order of proceedings dated 28 November 2016 declaring

NASECORE to have waived its right to cross-examine the Applicants'
witness was mailed via private courier and received by NASECORE
on 15 December 2016. No motion or any manifestation was submitted
by NASECORE within the period allowed by law and rules to question
the same.

Likewise, a copy of the Commission's Order dated 01 February

2017 setting another hearing on 06 March 2017 for NASECORE's
ERC CASE NO. 2016-092 RC
Order/o5 December 2017
Page 3 of 17

presentation of evidence was mailed to NASECORE via private

courier and received by it on 23 February 2017.

During the 06 March 2017 hearing, NASECORE was again not

present. Applicants MERALCO and AiE made their oral formal offer
of evidence. During the same hearing, NASECORE has been declared
by the Commission to have waived its right to present evidence, upon
motion of Applicants, after failure of NASECORE to appear in the
said hearing despite due notice and without good cause shown of its
non-appearance.

On o6 and o8 March 2017, MERALCO and AiE filed their

respective written Formal Offer of Evidence. Both Formal Offers of
Evidence (FOE) were furnished to NASECORE by the Applicants.

Subsequently, on 31 July 2017, Intervenor NASECORE filed an

Urgent Motion for Production of Documents (with Prayer for Cross-
examination of Applicants' Witnesses) (Urgent Motion) seeking the
production of the following documents:

a. The load profile and actual power purchases in kilowatt-

hours (kWh) of MERALCO for the past twelve (12)
months prior to the filing of the said applications up to
the present;
b. Copy of the simulation of the impact of the rate subject of
these applications to the current rates;
C. The existing approved Power Supply Contracts (PSCs) of
MERALCO;
d. A table showing the computation o. MERALCO's monthly
generation charges for the past five () years prior to the
filing of the said applications showing the purchases in
kWh, energy sales, basic generation costs, other costs
adjustments, total generation charge for the month,
average generation charge for the previous month,
average generation charge for the month and the
increase/decrease column for each of its contracted power
suppliers;
e. A table showing the monthly demand versus actual
deliveries and generation charge of MERALCO for the
past five () years prior to the filing of the said
applications; and
ERC CASE NO. 2016-092 RC
Order/o5 December 2017
Page 4 of 17

f. Copy of the monthly invoice and official receipt of the

individual supplier of MERALCO for the past three (3)
years prior to the filing of the said applications.

The Commission then issued an Order dated 25 September

2017 directing NASECORE to comment on Applicants' FOEs, which it
received via private courier on 03 October 2017. NASECORE,
however, has not commented on the submitted FOEs of Applicants.

The same Order likewise directed MERALCO and AiE to

submit their Comments on NASECORE's Urgent Motion.

MERALCO filed its Opposition to the Urgent Motion for

Production of Documents (with Prayer for Cross-examination of
Applicants' Witness) on 29 September 2017.

On 09 October 2017, AlE filed its Opposition to the Urgent

Motion for Production of Documents (with Prayer for Cross-
Examination ofApplicants' Witnesses).

ISSUES

The issues for the Commission's resolution are the following:

1. Whether the motion for the production of documents

made by Intervenor NASECORE should be granted.

2. Whether the prayer in the same motion by NASECORE to

conduct the cross-examination of Applicants' witness
should be granted.

THE COMMISSION'S RULING

The Commission, after deliberation, resolves to DENY the

motion for the production of documents and prayer to cross-examine
Applicants' witness.
ERC CASE NO. 2016-092 RC
Order/os December 2017
Page 5 of 17

DISCUSSION

In a long list of cases, the Supreme Court has emphasized

importance of technical rules of procedure in the proper dispensation
and administration of justice and in ensuring the orderly course of
proceedings.

In the case of PNB v. Deang Marketing Corporation, et al., 1 the

Supreme Court had occasion to rule that in order to ensure the
orderly administration of justice, obedience to procedural rules
cannot be dispensed with. To wit:

Rules of procedure, especially those prescribing

the time within which certain acts must be done,
have often been held as absolutely indispensable
to the prevention of needless delays and to the
orderly and speedy discharge of business. The
bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" is
not a magic wand that will automatically compel this
Court to suspend procedural rules.:

Under Rule 1, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of

Civil Procedure, liberal construction of the
rules is the controlling principle to effect
substantial justice. Thus, litigations should, as
much as possible, be decided on their merits
and not on technicalities. This does not
mean, however, that procedural rules
are to be ignored or disdained at will to
suit the convenience of a party.
Procedural law has its own rationale in
the orderly administration of justice,
namely, to ensure the effective
enforcement of substantive rights by
providing for a system that obviates
arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or
whimsicality in the settlement of
disputes. Hence, it is a mistake to suppose
that substantive law and procedural law are
contradictory to each other, or as often
suggested, that enforcement of procedural
rules should never be permitted if it would
result in prejudice to the substantive rights of
the litigants.

Litigation is not a game of technicalities, but

every case must be prosecuted in accordance
with the prescribed procedure so that issues
may be properly presented and justly resolved.
Hence, rules of procedure must be faithfully

G.R. No. 177931, o8 December 2008.

ERC CASE NO. 2016-092 RC
Order/os December 2017
Page 6 of 17
followed except only when for persuasive
reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a
litigant of an injustice not commensurate with
his failure to comply with the prescribed
procedure. Concomitant to a liberal
application of the rules of procedure
should be an effort on the part of the
party invoking liberality to explain his
failure to abide by the rules. (Emphasis
ours.)

Procedural rules exist in order to ensure the speedy and

expeditious disposition of proceedings before any tribunal consistent
with the principles of due process - by implementing an orderly
system for all interested parties to be given an opportunity to be
heard within reasonable periods, without unnecessary delays.2

The Commission, keeping in mind the need to uphold rules of

procedure, particularly those which provide specific time periods
within which certain acts must be done, also recognizes the presence
of exceptional circumstances or meritorious grounds that would
justify reasonable delays in the disposition of cases. Similarly, this
principle is echoed by the Commission in its very own Rules of
Practice and Procedure.3

In the case of Belonio v. Rodriguez, et al.,4 quoting Padua v.

Ericta,5 the Supreme Court held that it is ultimately the court or
tribunal who has the discretion to decide what would constitute
meritorious grounds for the allowance of delays and postponements.
To wit:
Courts should not brook undue delays in the ventilation and
determination of causes. It should be their constant effort to
assure that litigations are prosecuted and resolved with
dispatch. Postponements of trials and hearings
should not be allowed except on meritorious
grounds; and the grant or refusal thereof rests
entirely in the sound discretion of the Judge. It goes
without saying, however, that discretion must be reasonably
and wisely exercised, in the light of the attendant
circumstances. Some reasonable deferment of the
proceedings may be allowed or tolerated to the end that
cases may be adjudged only after full and free presentation of
evidence by all the parties, especially where the deferment

2 Id.
3 It is apparent from a reading of Rule 1, 2006 ERC Rules of Practice and Procedure that the
Commission aims to ensure the least expensive and most expeditious determination of all
proceedings before the Commission on its merits.
4 G.R. No. 161379, fl August 2005.
5 G.R. No. L- 38570, 24 May 1988.
ERC CASE NO. 2016-092 RC
Order/os December 2017
Page 7 of 17
would cause no substantial prejudice to any part. The
desideratum of a speedy disposition of cases should not, if at
all possible, result in the precipitate loss of a party's right to
present evidence and either in plaintiffs being non-suited or
of the defendant's being pronounced liable under an ex parte
judgment. (Emphasis ours.)

Accordingly, the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure

must prevail at all times, absent the showing of exceptional
circumstances that would justify reasonable delays in the proceedings
before it. The filing of any dilatory motion before the Commission
undermines its legal processes - processes which must be accorded
due respect and obedience. The Commission remains vigilant in
preventing any dilatory maneuver intended to delay the final
resolution and disposition of all its proceedings.

1. DENY NASECORE's prayer

in the Urgent Motion to
cross-examine Applicants'
witness.

The rights of parties in a proceeding before the Commission are

provided under Section 4, Rule 8 of the ERC Rules of Practice and
Procedure (RPP), to wit:

Section 4. Rights of Parties. - At any proceeding before

the Commission, each party of record is entitled to
enter an appearance, introduce evidence, examine and
cross-examine witnesses, make arguments, make
and argue motions and generally participate in the
proceeding. (Emphasis supplied.)

Cross-examination of witnesses is to be done after the

Applicants present their evidence and before formally offering their
exhibits, as provided in Section 5, Rule 18 of the RPP 6 .

6 5ection 5, Rule iS of the ERC Rules of Practice and Procedure (RPP):

(a) The party initiating the proceeding shall present its evidence by offering the
affidavits and supporting documents of its witnesses and such additional
evidences as it may wish to present. In consolidated proceedings, all parties
initiating the consolidated proceeding shall first present their evidence;
(b) The witnesses shall be cross-examined by the respondent, opposing party or
intervenors;
(c) The party initiating the proceeding may, if it deems necessary, ask questions
on re-direct examination on matters covered during the cross-examination of
its witness and the respondent; the opposing party or intervenors shall
thereafter be allowed to conduct re-cross-examination on matters covered by
the re-direct examination of the witness;
(d) After presentation of its witnesses, the party initiating the proceeding shall
formally offer its exhibits;
ERC CASE NO. 2016-092 RC
Order/o5 December 2017
Page 8 of 17

The right of an admitted Intervenor to examine and cross-

examine witnesses is accorded by the RPP. However, the failure of
Intervenor NASECORE in the instant case to appear during public
hearings despite due notice is tantamount to a waiver of its right to
cross-examine. As aptly held by the Supreme Court in the 2017 case of
Dy Teban Trading, Inc. v Peter Dy, Johnny Dy and Ramon Dy7:

The right of a party to confront and cross-examine

opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal
or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative
tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental
right which is part of due process. However, the right is a
personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly
by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of
cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the
opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed
to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the
right to cross-examine and the testimony given on
direct examination of the witness will be received or
allowed to remain in the record.57 (Citations omitted.)
(Emphasis supplied.)

The waiver of the right to cross-examine a witness may

be express or implied. In these instances, no violation of
the constitutional right to due process is committed as
the party himself or herself has opted not to exercise the
right. The validity of a waiver of the right to cross-
examine is recognized in our jurisdiction. The difficulty,
however, is in cases where the waiver of the right is only
implied. An implied waiver may take various forms. In
ascertaining whether a party has waived his or her right
to cross-examine a witness, this Court has identified a
general standard that depends, for its application, on the
surrounding facts of each particular case. In Savory
Luncheonette, this Court said that a party may be
deemed to have waived his or her right to cross-
examine a witness when he or she was given an
opportunity to confront and cross-examine an
opposing witness but failed to do so for reasons
attributable to himself or herself alone.5 8
(Citations omitted.) (Emphasis supplied.)

NASECORE, in its Urgent Motion, admitted its absence during

the previous hearings and proceeded to justify its non-appearance on

(e) The respondent, opposing party or intervenors, as the case may be, shall then
present their evidence in the same manner;
(f) Presentation of rebuttal or sur-rebuttal evidence may be allowed subject to
the discretion of the Commission.
7 G.R. No. 185647, 26 July 2017.
ERC CASE NO. 2016-092 RC
Order/os December 2017
Page 9 of 17

account of lack in regular funds 8 . However, the reason advanced by

Intervenor NASECORE does not show good cause to excuse its
absence.

Section 7 on cross-examination in the RPP's Rule 18 provides

that:

Section 7. Cross-examination. - Cross-

examination of the witness presenting such written
testimony shall proceed and terminate at the hearing at
which it is authenticated by the witness, unless the
Commission or presiding officer for good cause shall
otherwise direct. In the cross-examination of witnesses,
only relevant, pertinent and material questions necessary
to enlighten the Commission on the issues shall be
allowed.

Also included in NASECORE's Urgent Motion is a

manifestation that it does not intend to waive its right to cross-
examine the witnesses of Applicants. NASECORE justified its absence
during the hearings by alleging that it has no regular funds to defray
the costs of clerical and messengerial work to photocopy and send out
pleadings as well as to send its representatives to attend each and
every hearing scheduled by the Commission.

It must be noted that the Urgent Motion was only filed one
hundred forty-five (145) days or four (4) months after the last FOE
was submitted and two hundred forty-five (245) days or eight (8)
months after the 28 November 2016 hearing.

The Commission believes that the belated filing of the Urgent

Motion cannot be excused by the fact, as alleged by NASECORE, that
it lacked funds and resources to file the necessary pleadings in a
timely manner and attend the scheduled hearings. The explanation
advanced by NASECORE of its failure to attend the hearings could
have been raised early on before the FOEs were filed through a
written motion or other means with least cost to notify the
Commission of the constraints it faces in appearing and participating
in the proceedings.

Allegation 12 of the Urgent Motion reads:

NASECORE's absence during the previous hearings can readily be justified. Being a non-
stock, non-profit organization, NASECORE has no regular funds to defray the costs of
clerical and messengerial work to photocopy and send out pleadings as well as to send its
representatives to attend each and every hearing scheduled by this Honorable Commission.
ERC CASE NO. 2016-092 RC
Order/o5 December 2017
Page 10 of 17
It is ultimately within the exercise of the Commission's
discretion to determine what circumstances it would deem acceptable
as to warrant the relaxation of its procedural rules, especially those
which provide for reglementary periods. In the instance case, the
exceptional circumstance put forth by NASECORE does not
sufficiently justify the unreasonably long period of delay it had
incurred before filing its Urgent Motion.

NASECORE was already declared to have waived its right

to cross examine the witness during hearing.

During the hearing on 28 November 2016, upon motion of

Applicants, Intervenor NASECORE was declared in open court to
have waived its right to cross-examine the witness for failure to
appear despite due notice. The Commission or the presiding officer
may act on the motions by entering such orders as are deemed
necessary to address the issues raised9. A copy of the Order of
proceedings dated 28 November 2016 containing the said declaration
was sent to NASECORE via private courier and received by it on 15
December 2016.

It is worthy of note that Intervenor NASECORE was given all

the opportunities to appear during the hearings, participate in the
proceedings, and exercise its rights as party-intervenor. However,
NASECORE slept on its rights and is already barred by laches. Laches
has been defined in the case of Pinausukan Seafood House v. Far
East Bank & Trust C ornpanybo, as:

Laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and

unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due
diligence could nor should have been done earlier; it is
negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable
time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert
it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. Its other name
is stale demands, and it is based upon grounds of public policy
that requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of
stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere
question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or
unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or
asserted. (Citations omitted.) x x x

With the Commission's declaration of the waiver of right of

Intervenor NASECORE to cross-examine Applicants' witness, the

9 Section 3, Rule 12 of the RPP.

G.R. No. 159926, 20 January 2014.
ERC CASE NO. 2016-092 RC
Order/05 December 2017
Page ii of 17

prayer to conduct cross-examination included in the Urgent Motion

should be denied.

2. DENY the Urgent Motion

for Production of
Documents by reason of
the denial of its prayer to
cross-examine Applicants'
witness.

In the Urgent Motion, NASECORE prayed before the

Commission to direct Applicants to submit the following documents:

a) The load profile and actual power purchases in kilowatt-

hours (kWh) of MERALCO for the past twelve (12) months
prior to the filing of the said applications up to the present;

b) Copy of the simulation of the impact of the rate subject of

these applications to the current rates;

c) The existing approved Power Supply Contracts (PSCs) of

MERALCO;

d) A table showing the computation of MERALCO's monthly

generation charges for the past five () years prior to the
filing of the said applications showing the purchases in kWh,
energy sales, basic generation costs, other costs adjustments,
total generation charge for the month, average generation
charge for the previous month, average generation charge for
the month and the increase/decrease column for each of its
contracted power suppliers;

e) A table showing the monthly demand versus actual deliveries

and generation charge of MERALCO for the past five ()
years prior to the filing of the said applications; and

0 Copy of the monthly invoice and official receipt of the

individual supplier of MERALCO for the past three (3) years
prior to the filing of the said applications.

Section 4, Rule 15 of the Commission's RPP provides that:

In any proceeding pending before the

Commission, the Commission and any party may
request such data, studies, work papers, reports,
ERC CASE NO. 2016-092 RC
Order/o5 December 2017
Page 12 of 17

and information as are reasonably relevant to

the proceeding and are permitted by these rules or by
law.

Data requests by a party shall be in writing, shall

be directed to the party whom the request is made or its
attorney, copy furnished the Commission, and shall
specify in as much detail as possible the material
requested. Oral data requests may be allowed at the
Commission's or presiding officer's discretion when
made on the record during a hearing. Written or oral
requests for data shall include the purpose and
justification therefor. Any requested material or
portion thereof to which objection is not made as set
forth below shall be produced for the requesting party as
soon as practicable and in no event later than fifteen (15)
days after service of the request, unless the time for
production is otherwise shortened or extended by
agreement or order of the Commission. (Emphasis
supplied.)

In the same Urgent Motion, NASECORE alleged that its reason

for requesting the said documents is for the conduct of its cross-
examination of applicants' witnesses, to wit:

13. Relatively, the production of the herein subject

documents must first be complied and furnished to
NASECORE before it can intelligibly and appropriately
conduct its cross-examination of the applicants'
witnesses.

14. It is for this reason that NASECORE begs the

indulgence of this Honorable Commission to direct the
production of the subject documents and for it to allow
its cross-examination of applicants' witnesses, in order
that public interest may continually be safeguarded by
and through NASECORE's continued intervention in the
above cases.

..

NASECORE contended that the inclusion and introduction of

these documents will not unduly broaden the issues because these are
essential in establishing and determining (a) the need for MERALCO
to undertake or contract for additional electrical power and (b) the
reasonableness of the rates imposed in relation to cost of recovery
and its period.
ERC CASE NO. 2016-092 RC
Order/os December 2017
Page 13 of 17

NASECORE likewise asserted that the production of the above-

mentioned documents is necessary for it to intelligibly and
appropriately conduct its cross-examination.

In its Opposition, MERALCO argued that the Urgent Motion

should be denied since NASECORE failed to (i) file it within the
period allowed under the ERC Rules of Procedure and (ii) show good
cause why it was filed out of time. MERALCO also argued that the
same must be denied because the request for production of
documents are moot, irrelevant and baseless.

On the other hand, AiE contended in its Opposition that

NASECORE has been declared by the Commission to have waived its
right to cross-examine the Applicants' witnesses and has not shown
good cause for its failure to cross-examine the Applicants' witnesses.
Moreover, AiE argued that granting the motion will set a dangerous
precedent in applications for approval of PSAs and NASECORE's
argument in support of the motion is misplaced. In addition, AiE
claimed that the documents requested by NASECORE are either
already accessible or are irrelevant to the instant application.

MERALCO and AtE thus pray that the Urgent Motion be

denied.

Pursuant to Section 4, Rule 15 of the Commission's RPP, the

motion to produce the documents to be used in the conduct of its
cross-examination must be denied.

Intervenor NASECORE's reason for requesting the above-listed

documents is for it to be able to "intelligibly and appropriately
conduct its cross-examination." With the denial of its prayer to cross-
examine the Applicants' witness, the purpose and justification upon
which NASECORE anchored its request can no longer stand.

3) SUBMIT the case for

resolution due to the
declaration that
NASECORE has already
waived its right to present
evidence.

Section 4, Rule 8 of the Commission's RPP provides the rights

of parties, to wit:
ERC CASE NO. 2016-092 RC
Order/05 December 2017
Page 14 of 17
Section 4. Rights of Parties. - At any proceeding before
the Commission, each party of record is entitled to enter
an appearance, introduce evidence, examine and cross-
examine witnesses, make arguments, make and argue motion
and generally participate in the proceedings. (Emphasis
supplied.)

Further, Section 5, Rule 18 of the same RPP enumerates the

order of presentation of evidence, as follows:

(a) The party initiating the proceeding shall present its

evidence by offering the affidavits and supporting
documents of its witnesses and such additional evidences
as it may wish to present. In consolidated proceedings,
all parties initiating the consolidated proceeding shall
first present their evidence;
(b) The witnesses shall be cross-examined by the
respondent, opposing party or intervenors;
(c) The party initiating the proceeding may, if it deems
necessary, ask questions on re-direct examination on
matters covered during the cross-examination of its
witness and the respondent; the opposing party or
intervenors shall thereafter be allowed to conduct re-
cross-examination on matters covered by the re-direct
examination of the witness;
(d) After presentation of its witnesses, the party
initiating the proceeding shall formally offer its
exhibits;
(e) The respondent, opposing party or intervenors,
as the case may be, shall then present their
evidence in the same manner;
(f) Presentation of rebuttal or sur-rebuttal evidence may be
allowed subject to the discretion of the Commission.
(Emphasis supplied.)

During the o6 March 2017 hearing set for the purpose of

NASECORE's presentation of evidence, Applicants MERALCO and
ME made their oral formal offer of evidence. During the same
hearing, NASECORE has been declared by the Commission to have
waived its right to present evidence, upon motion of Applicants, after
failure of NASECORE to appear in the said hearing despite due notice
and without good cause shown of its non-appearance. A copy of the
Order dated 01 February 2017 setting the o6 March 2017 hearing was
sent to NASECORE via private courier and received by it on 23
February 2017.

The Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) of the 06 March

2017 hearing for this case would show the motion of Applicants to
declare NASECORE to have waived its right to present evidence
which the Commission granted, to wit:
ERC CASE NO. 2016-092 RC
Order/os December 2017
Page 15 of 17

xxx

AnY. VALLES:
Your Honor, for MERALCO it has been observed
that from the time we file this Application and
the first hearing NASECORE has not appeared
before this Honorable Commission and after
filing their intervention they have not bothered to
appear. They have been notified and did not
conduct cross-examination of our witnesses and
despite several notices they have opted to refuse
to attend any of the hearings scheduled by this
Honorable Commission which only shows their
lack of interest in pursuing their intervention,
your Honor. We, therefore, move that
NASECORE be deemed to have waived its right
to present its evidence and that after we have
already submitted our compliance to the latest
Order of the Honorable Commission that this
case already be deemed submitted for decision,
your Honor.
Am. PARAISO:
We join the manifestation and motion of
MERALCO, your Honor.
Am. GALURA:
The manifestations are noted. In light of the
absence of NASECORE to appear in today's
hearing and in previous hearings and in light of
the proof of service to NASECORE,
notwithstanding the fact NASECO still not
around, the motion of Atty. Valles is hereby
granted. NASECORE is deemed to have waived
its right to present evidence. However,
NASECORE can still submit pleadings until such
time that the Commission has deemed this case
submitted for resolution. Do you have any other
concerns aside from your submissions Counsels?
xxx

Again, Section 3, Rule 12 of the Commission's RPP provides

that "the COmmission or the presiding officer may act on the motions
by entering such orders as are deemed necessary to address the issues
raisedhl."

11 Section 3, Rule 12 of the RPP.

ERC CASE NO. 2016-092 RC
Order/05 December 2017
Page 16 of 17

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Urgent Motion for

Production of Documents (with Prayer for Cross-examination of
Applicants' Witnesses) filed by Intervenor National Association of
Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc. (NASECORE) on 31 July
2017 is hereby DENIED.

ACCORDINGLY, with the Applicants Manila Electric Company

(MERALCO) and Atimonan One Energy, Inc. (AiE) resting their case
with the filing of the Formal Offer of Evidence (FOE), and the
declaration that NASECORE has already waived its right to present
its own evidence, the instant case will be deemed submitted for the
Commission's resolution.

SO ORDERED.

Pasig City, 05 December 2017.

FOR AND BY AUTHORITY

OF THE COMMISSION:

JOSEFINA PATR14Qd1V1AGPALE-ASIRYr
Confds\5ioñer

LS:Gó/bT

copy furnished:
1. Attys. Francis Dino S. Antonio, Carmen Grace S. Ramos, Katherine Mari S.
Garcia-Moreno and Raymond B. Yap
Counsel for Applicant MER.ALCO
7hFloor, Lopez Building, Ortigas Avenue
Barangay Ugong, Pasig City
2. Puyat Jacinto & Santos
Counsel for Applicant AlE
10thFloor 8 Rockwell
Plaza corner Hidalgo Drive
Rockwell Center, Makati City

3. Manila Electric Company (MERALCO)

Applicant
Ortigas Avenue, Barangay Ugong, Pasig City

4. Atimonan One Energy, Inc. (AlE)

Applicant
8th Floor, Tower i, Rockwell Business Center
Ortigas Avenue, Pasig City
ERC CASE NO. 2016-092 RC
Order/o5 December 2017
Page 17 of 17

5. Atty. Rafael Antonio M. Acebedo

Counsel for Intervenor NASECORE
National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc. (NASECORE)
No. 85 Independencia St., Tacloban City
6. National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc. (NASECORE)
Intervenor
No. 85 Independencia St., Tacloban City

7. Matuwid na Singil sa Kuryente Consumer Alliance, Inc. (MSK)

Unit 327, Eagle Court Condominium, Matalino Road,
Diliman, Quezon City
8. Mr. Romeo L. Junia
No. 8, Kaimito Road, Nayong Silangan,
Brgy. Dalig, Antipolo City

9. Gargantiel Ilagan & Atanante

Counsel for Mr. Romeo L. Junia
2ndFloor, Times Square Building
No. 57 Times Street corner Examiner Street
West Triangle, Quezon City 1104
10. Ms. Fe R. Bait
Aniban ng Manggagawa sa Agrikultura (AMA)
Apartment C, Harry's Apartment, Road 1, Maria Magdalena Subdivision,
San Juan, Balagtas, Bulacan
ii. Mr. Gerard C. Arances
Center for Energy, Ecology and Development (CEED)
Room 1, 29 P. Matimtiman St., Brgy. Teacher's Village,
Quezon City
12. Mr. Samuel Cesar M. Gamboa
Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC)
ii Matimpiin St., Brgy. Pinyahan,
Quezon City
13. Mr. Bibiano C. Rivera, Jr.
Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ)
13 Mabait St., Brgy. Teacher's Village,
Quezon City
14. Atty. Jose M. Aaron Pedrosa, Jr.
Sanlakas National
29 P Matimtiman St., Brgy. Teacher's Village,
Quezon City
15. Mr. Lynie L. Olimpo
Koalisyong Pabahay ng Pilipinas (KPP)
29 P Matimtiman St., Brgy. Teacher's Village,
Quezon City
16. Mr. Uriel G. Borja
BSA Towers, 1 o8 Legaspi Street
Makati City