Contradiction overdrive
Indeed the TRO and the writ of preliminary injunction do not, in any way, preserve the outcome prayed for by petitioner SMEC in this particular case, Meralco pleaded
Text size
Share
Daily TribuneIndeed the TRO and the writ of preliminary injunction do not, in any way, preserve the outcome prayed for by petitioner SMEC in this particular case, Meralco pleaded
Share
The San Miguel Corp. generation companies versus Energy Regulatory Commission and Meralco saga had taken an interesting twist after both the regulator and the power distributor opposed another petition of San Miguel Energy Corp to obtain a temporary restraining order from the Court of Appeals.
In its petition, Meralco said the TRO should not be granted to protect the public and by its obligation to provide customers with the least cost of electricity.
In its opposition to SMEC's application for the issuance of a TRO and writ of a preliminary injunction, Meralco said the CA should not give in to SMEC considering that instead of preserving the status quo, it will reverse the same, its grant will render the case moot and academic, its grant will be a pre-judgment of the main case, the TRO and the preliminary injunction are improper remedies for the particular case, its grant shall cause prejudice to the consumers, and petitioner SMEC failed to demonstrate that it will suffer grave and irreparable injury if the injunctive relief prayed for will not be granted.
The issuance of a TRO or a preliminary injunction by the CA may lead to a situation where the last actual peaceable and uncontested status which preceded the controversy (i.e. the status quo ante) will be reversed, rendering the issue-at-hand moot, effecting a pre-judgment of the case. according to Meralco.
It is baffling for petitioner SMEC to seek injunctive relief to recognize its supposed termination of the very contract it wishes to modify or adjust in the main action, it added.
It said the prayer for a TRO and a writ of a preliminary injunction are improper remedies as they are inconsistent with the main prayer in the petition and their grant shall render the main case moot.
Indeed the TRO and the writ of preliminary injunction do not, in any way, preserve the outcome prayed for by petitioner SMEC in this particular case, Meralco pleaded.
Beyond regulation
Another case of contradiction in the Philippine business is that of ride-hailing firm Grab Philippines which has become notorious during the holiday season due to reports of overcharging.
The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board, Philippine Competition Committee, solons of the nation, and the Lawyers for Commuters Safety and Protection group, have called attention to this and asked Grab to explain.
From the taxicab minimum flag-down fare of P45 set by the LTFRB in 2019, Grab has increased this number to a whopping P85, though they somehow maintain that the increase is within the fare guidelines.
A plan to increase the commission rate by two percent will result in a 22 percent extra charge.
With a substantial hold on the market, Grab has decided to ram through the charges at the literal expense of commuters.
The Singapore-originated Grab bought out American-born Uber and monopolized TNVS since 2018.
With the Covid-19 pandemic easing up, the demand for TNVS increased once more. Thanks to the convenience and a level of safety in terms of reduced exposure.
