'Big 3' say court has no jurisdiction over prices

MANILA, Philippines - The big three oil companies (Chevron, Petron Corp. and Pilipinas Shell) have filed an urgent motion with the Regional Trial Court Branch 26 presided over by Judge Silvino Pampilo reiterating that the court has no jurisdiction over SJS’s motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the three oil firms from “further increasing the pump prices of their petroleum products.” 

The oil companies also filed a motion for inhibition stating that they “have lost faith and confidence in the Honorable Presiding Judge and, thus, does not expect a fair and impartial resolution of the instant suit. We seriously doubt the Honorable Presiding Judge’s integrity and fairness to dispense justice with the cold neutrality of a magistrate and thus respectfully request his voluntary inhibition.”

The three oil companies have questioned the jurisdiction of the court since price adjustments are not illegal or prohibited unless in clear cases of monopoly, combinations in restraint of trade or cartelization. Under the Oil Deregulation Law, the exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and determine these violations lies within the powers of the Department of Energy- Department of Justice (DOE-DOJ) Task Force and not with the trial court.

Petron, Shell and Chevron have questioned before the Supreme Court (SC) and Court of Appeals (CA) the act of the presiding judge in continuing with the hearings despite the fact that the DOE-DOJ Task Force, which has the authority to hear complaints of cartelization, already declared that there is no cartelization.

The oil companies claim that enjoining them from implementing price adjustments runs counter to the policy of deregulation and inconsistent with the SC ruling in Garcia vs. Corona that deregulation entails freedom from price control. In the ruling the SC said that “deregulation means the lifting of control, governance and direction through rule or regulation. It means that the regulated industry is freed from the controls, guidance and restrictions to which it is subjected.”

Additionally, the companies stated that SJS has made use of a wrong legal remedy when it mistakenly filed what is called a petition for “declaratory relief” which is only appropriate if there is a question of interpretation of the rights of a person under the law. Seeing this mistake, SJS in the hearing last Sept. 11, 2009 manifested that they are converting their pending petition for declaratory relief into an ordinary civil action. During the same hearing, the oil companies contended that since the main action of declaratory relief was “converted” into an ordinary action, the proceedings should have been suspended until the proper civil action is initiated. Instead, Judge Pampilo continued with the proceedings.