letter to the editor

GOOD DAY and we hope this reaches you well.

We write as counsel for the Panay Electric Company (PECO) in relation to the news article published on BusinessWorld online 25 September 2019 with the headline, “Court orders Panay Electric to comment on suit.”

We are thankful that this massive legal victory for PECO found space in your esteemed newspaper.

However, we are hoping that the article included certain crucial facts such as:

(a) The denial of MORE’s prayer for TRO meant that the expropriation proceedings in Iloilo cannot, in the meantime, continue; and

(b) MORE and the Iloilo Judge who granted the writ of possession in its favor, Yvette Go, have been ordered to show cause why they should not be declared in direct and indirect contempt of the Supreme Court for proceeding with the expropriation.

We respect the editorial discretion on how the news was presented but we would also like to clarify that the lead of the article, which was about the Supreme Court requiring PECO to comment, is nothing out of the ordinary and does not in any way mean that the tribunal found any merit in the petition — because precisely the prayer for TRO was denied. The order to comment was meant to afford PECO its right to be heard.

For clarification on the ongoing legal proceedings regarding this important story, please know that we are at your disposal.

Again, thank you very much.

Sincerely your, DIVINA LAW

By:

Nilo T. Divina Estrella C. Elamparo John Michael S. Galauran Rhegine T. Peralta Anna Camille C. Himala Hilton A. Lazo