This refers to the news report titled “SC allows pass-through power payment deal” that appeared in the Inquirer (Second Front Page, 2/10/14). In the interest of accuracy and in view of the wide readership of the Inquirer as well as the level of public interest in the subject matter of the news item, allow us to correct certain matters in the news item that may mislead your readers.
First, the date of the ruling is Dec. 11, 2013, not Dec. 13, 2013, as stated in the news item.
Second, the headline of the news item (“SC allows pass-through power payment deal”) is both inaccurate and misleading. The Court expressly stated in pages 9-10 and 15 of the Decision that the “pass-through provision” was not under review because the provision was not within the regional trial court’s competence but within the Energy Regulatory Commission’s.
Third, it is incorrect to say that “(t)he Supreme Court has denied a government bid to stop the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) and the National Power Corp. (Napocor) from finalizing a 2003 settlement agreement that would allow the distribution firm to pass on its P14-billion debt to the power supplier to its customers.” Again, the Court was express and clear on this matter. On page 15, the Court started the section stating that the “validity of the settlement agreement is not an issue in this appeal” and further that “(t)he Court believes and holds that it cannot address such arguments simply because the issue in this appeal concerns only the upholding by the CA of the propriety of the assailed interlocutory orders of the RTC. The validity of the Settlement Agreement is not in issue. Moreover, the validity of the Settlement Agreement is properly within the competence of the RTC, the proper court for that purpose (except the matter of the pass-through provision, which was within the jurisdiction of the ERC).” (Decision, p. 15)
Fourth, the Court did not rule on the merits of the Settlement Agreement in the Dec. 11, 2013 Decision as it simply denied the petition for review of the government and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision of Oct. 14, 2011, in CA-GR SP No. 116863 (Decision, p. 15) on the basis of mootness (Decision, p. 9, specifically titled “RTC’s intervening rendition of the decision on the merits has rendered this appeal moot”). The Court of Appeals’ Decision had ruled that the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 71 was correct in denying the Solicitor General’s motion to cancel pre-trial and declare the government to have waived the right to participate in the pre-trial and to present evidence (Decision, p. 7-8). In its Decision, the Court ruled on page 9 that the RTC decision rendered the appeal moot—an important fact that was never stated in the news item as the reason for the denial of the petition for review and an additional reason why your headline is both inaccurate and misleading.
The Inquirer is widely read and relied upon and enjoys a reputation for being well-edited and well-written. Errors such as these are simply not excusable, especially as they tend to mislead and misinform.
—THEODORE O. TE,
assistant court administrator
and chief, Public Information Office, Supreme Court