Price watchdog to join case vs 'Big 3' oil firms

MANILA, Philippines - Businessman Raul Concepcion, and the Consumer and Oil Price Watch (COPW) were allowed yesterday to intervene in the trial of monopoly and cartelization case against Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., Caltex Phils, Inc., and Petron Corp. before the Manila Regional Trial Court.

In granting the petition for intervention of Concepcion and COPW, Judge Silvino Pampilo Jr. of Manila RTC Branch 26, said they are consumers of petroleum products who have interests in the subject of litigation.

“In addition, the allegation of Shell Petroleum Corp. that the admission of petition in intervention will cause undue delay is unsubstantiated,” read Pampilo’s decision.

Shell opposed Concepcion’s and COPW’s petition, claiming the court has no jurisdiction over the main action, for declaratory relief, and thus has no jurisdiction to entertain Concepcion’s motion to intervene.

On the other hand, Pampilo said Petron’s argument centers mainly on the absence of legal interest on the part of Concepcion and the COPW to intervene.

Pampilo noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that the legal interest entitling a person to intervene must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect of judgment.

Last March 10, Concepcion and the COPW asked the Manila court for a judicial intervention in investigating the three oil firms, which were cleared of cartelization and overpricing charges by a joint Department of Energy-Department of Justice Task Force on Oil Deregulation in 2008. Pampilo said that Concepcion believes the task force’s report is invalid.

Pampilo said once judicial intervention is granted, it will give the COPW rights to file civil and criminal charges against the three oil companies.

In a six-page motion, Concepcion said that from the period Republic Act 8479, the oil price deregulation law, was implemented in 1998 to the filing of the original petition of the case on March 21, 2003, the three oil firms allegedly increased the prices of their petroleum products “either simultaneously or in quick succession of each other resulting in very similar prices, differing only by a few centavos, of their petroleum products in the same areas, even when they purchased the crude oil or refined petroleum at different times.”      – Sandy Araneta