Approved for - Energy Regulatory Commission

Republic of the Philippines ENERGY REGULATORY COMM

San Miguel Ave., Pasig City

Approved for Posthg

www.ercgov.ph

IN THE MAflER OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE POWER SUPPLY AGREEMENT (PSA) BETWEEN MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO) AND REDONDO PENINSULA ENERGY, INC. (RPE), WITH MOTION FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF INFORMATION,

ERC CASE NO. 2016-084 RC

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO) AND REDONDO PENINSULA ENERGY, INC. (RPE),

Applicants. x---------------------- 7<

DOCX9

ETEO Date: qv. ---- ----

ORDER

Before this Commission for resolution is the Urgent Motion for Production of Documents (with Prayer for Cross-examination of Applicants' Witnesses) filed by Intervenor National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc. (NASECORE) on 31 July 2017.

ANTECEDENTS

On 29 April 2016, Applicants Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) and Redondo Peninsula Energy, Inc. (BYE) filed the instant Joint Application for the approval of their Power Supply Agreement (PSA).

ERC CASE NO. 2016-084 RC Order/o5 DECEMBER 2017 of 16

The Commission issued an Order with Notice of Public Hearing, both dated 03 October 2016, setting the case for hearing on 22 November 2016.

Public hearings were conducted for the instant case on the following dates:

1. 22 November 2016, for the determination of compliance with jurisdictional requirements, expository presentation, pre-trial conference, and evidentiary hearing; and

2. o6 January 2017, for the continuation of the evidentiary hearing.

During the hearing conducted on 22 November 2016, only the Applicants appeared. NASECORE did not appear but was admitted as an Intervenor. Likewise, upon the motion of MERALCO, an order of general default against anyone else not present during the hearing was issued by the Commission.

The Commission issued an Order dated 02 December 2016

summarizing its directives during the 22 November 2016 hearing and setting the case for hearing on 06 January 2017 for continuation of the evidentiary hearing and NASECORE's cross-examination of Applicants' witnesses. A copy of the said Order was received by NASECORE on 15 December 2016 via private courier.

However, NASECORE failed to appear during the 06 January 2017 hearing scheduled for its cross-examination of Applicants' witnesses despite due notice. MERALCO, joined by co-applicant RPE, orally moved that NASECORE be declared to have waived its right to cross-examine the witnesses considering that it has failed to appear in both hearings despite due notice. The Commission directed the Applicants to reduce their respective Motions into writing and file the same within ten (in) days from the date of the hearing or by 16

January 2017.

The Order of proceedings dated o6 January 2017 summarizing the Commission's orders and directives during the o6 January 2017

hearing was sent via private courier and received by NASECORE on 28 January 2017.


In compliance with the Commission's Order dated o6 January 2017, MERALCO and RPE filed its Joint Motion (to Declare Intervenor NASECORE to have Waived its Right to Cross-Examine the Witnesses of the Applicants) (Joint Motion) on 16 January 2017.

Copies of which were sent to NASECORE via registered mail on even date. No motion or any manifestation was submitted by NA.SECORE within the period allowed by law and rules to question the same.

Applicants, in their Joint Motion, alleged that NASECORE failed to appear in both hearings despite being duly notified through the publication and posting of the notice of hearing, and service to it of the Order dated 02 December 2016. NASECORE likewise failed to provide any excuse whatsoever for its failure to appear during the hearings. Thus, it shows NASECORE's lack of interest to participate in the proceedings, which more than warrant the waiver of its right to cross-examine the witnesses.

MERALCO and RPE based their argument on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Savory Luncheonette vs. Lakas ng Manggagawang Filipino, et al. 1 which held that the right to cross-examine is a fundamental right that is part of due process. The right, however, is a personal one that may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right to cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record.

The conduct of a party which may be construed as an implied waiver of the right to cross-examine may take various forms. But the common basic principle underlying the application of the rule on implied waiver is that the party was given the opportunity to confront and cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to take advantage of it for reasons attributable to himself alone.2

By such repeated absence despite due notice, NASECORE is deemed to have lost its right to cross-examine the witnesses of the Applicants.

G.R. No. L-38964, 31 January 1975. 2 Id.

ERC CASE NO. 2016-084 RC Order/os DECEMBER 2017 of 16

Based on the foregoing, MERALCO and RPE pray that NASECORE be deemed to have waived its right to cross-examine the witnesses of Applicants.

On 24 March 2017, MERALCO filed its Formal Offer of Evidence. Meanwhile, RPE filed its Formal Offer of Evidence on 28

March 2017. Both Formal Offers of Evidence (FOE) were furnished to NASECORE by the respective Applicants.

Subsequently, on 31 July 2017, Intervenor NASECORE filed an Urgent Motion for Production of Documents (with Prayer for Cross-examination of Applicants' Witnesses) (Urgent Motion) seeking the production of the following documents:

a. The load profile and actual power purchases in kilowatt-hours (kWh) of MERALCO for the past twelve (12)

months prior to the filing of the said applications up to the present;

b. Copy of the simulation of the impact of the rate subject of these applications to the current rates;

C. The existing approved Power Supply Contracts (PSCs) of MERALCO;

d. A table showing the computation of MERALCO's monthly generation charges for the past five () years prior to the filing of the said applications showing the purchases in kwh, energy sales, basic generation costs, other costs adjustments, total generation charge for the month, average generation charge for the previous month, average generation charge for the month and the increase/decrease column for each of its contracted power suppliers;

e. A table showing the monthly demand versus actual deliveries and generation charge of MERALCO for the past five () years prior to the filing of the said applications; and

f. Copy of the monthly invoice and official receipt of the individual supplier of MERALCO for the past three (3) years prior to the filing of the said applications.

ERC CASE NO. 2016-084 RC Order/o5 DECEMBER 2017 Page5ofl6

NASECORE contends that the inclusion and introduction of these documents will not unduly broaden the issues because these are essential in establishing and determining (a) the need for MERALCO to undertake or contract for additional electrical power and (b) the reasonableness of the rates imposed in relation to cost of recovery and its period.

Additionally, included in NASECORE's Urgent Motion is a manifestation that it does not intend to waive its right to cross-examine the witnesses of applicants. NASECORE justified its absence in both hearings alleging that it has no regular funds to defray the costs of clerical and messengerial work to photocopy and send out pleadings as well as to send its representatives to attend each and every hearing scheduled by the Commission.

NASECORE likewise contended that the production of the above-mentioned documents is necessary for it to intelligibly and appropriately conduct its cross-examination.

The Commission then issued an Order dated 25 September 2017 directing NASECORE to comment on Applicants' FOEs, which it received via private courier on 03 October 2017. NASECORE, however, has not commented on the submitted FOEs of Applicants.

The same Order likewise directed MERALCO and RYE to submit its respective comments on NASECORE's Urgent Motion.

MERALCO filed its Opposition to the Urgent Motion for Production of Documents on 29 September 2017.

In its Opposition, MERALCO argued that NASECORE has already been barred by laches when it only filed the Urgent Motion more than seven () months from the last hearing, despite being duly notified of the hearings and duly furnished with copies of Applicants' submissions.

MERALCO also contended that the request for production of documents is moot, irrelevant and baseless, and are intended to cloud the real issues of the case and mislead the Commission.

On 09 October 2017, RPE filed its Opposition to the Urgent Motion for Production of Documents) (with Prayer for Cross-examination ofApplicant's witnesses) with even date.


In its Opposition, RPE argues that Article III, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution3 cannot be cited as basis for NASECORE's Urgent Motion as the afore-cited provision is only applicable to official acts, transactions, decisions or government research data.

As of date, no Reply or any pleading has been filed by NASECORE to counter the allegations and contentions of the Applicants.

ISSUES

The issues for the Commission's resolution are the following:

1. Whether the motion for the production of documents made by Intervenor NASECORE should be granted.

2. Whether the prayer in the same motion by NASECORE to conduct the cross-examination of Applicants' witnesses should be granted.

THE COMMISSION'S RULING

The Commission, after deliberation, resolves to DENY the motion for the production of documents and prayer to cross-examine Applicants' witnesses.

DISCUSSION

In a long list of cases, the Supreme Court has emphasized importance of technical rules of procedure in the proper dispensation and administration of justice and in ensuring the orderly course of proceedings.

In the case of PNB v. Deang Marketing Corporation, et al.,4 the Supreme Court had occasion to rule that in order to ensure the

3 Article III, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution states, to wit: Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

4 G.R. No. 177931, o8 December 2008.


orderly administration of justice, obedience to procedural rules cannot be dispensed with. To wit:

Rules of procedure, especially those prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, have often been held as absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of business. The bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules.:

Under Rule 1, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, liberal construction of the rules is the controlling principle to effect substantial justice. Thus, litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on technicalities. This does not mean, however, that procedural rules are to be ignored or disdained at will to suit the convenience of a party. Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderly administration of justice, namely, to ensure the effective enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. Hence, it is a mistake to suppose that substantive law and procedural law are contradictory to each other, or as often suggested, that enforcement of procedural rules should never be permitted if it would result in prejudice to the substantive rights of the litigants.

Litigation is not a game of technicalities, but every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure so that issues may be properly presented and justly resolved. Hence, rules of procedure, must be faithfully followed except only when for persuasive reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to explain his failure to abide by the rules. (Emphasis ours.)

Procedural rules exist in order to ensure the speedy and expeditious disposition of proceedings before any tribunal consistent


with the principles of due process - by implementing an orderly system for all interested parties to be given an opportunity to be heard within reasonable periods, without unnecessary d elays .5

The Commission, keeping in mind the need to uphold rules of procedure, particularly those which provide specific time periods within which certain acts must be done, also recognizes the presence of exceptional circumstances or meritorious grounds that would justify reasonable delays in the disposition of cases. Similarly, this principle is echoed by the Commission in its very own Rules of Practice and Procedure. 6

In the case of Belonio v. Rodriguez, et al.,7 quoting Padua v. Ericta,8 the Supreme Court held that it is ultimately the court or tribunal who has the discretion to decide what would constitute meritorious grounds for the allowance of delays and postponements. To wit:

Courts should not brook undue delays in the ventilation and determination of causes. It should be their constant effort to assure that litigations are prosecuted and resolved with dispatch. Postponements of trials and hearings should not be allowed except on meritorious grounds; and the grant or refusal thereof rests entirely in the sound discretion of the Judge. It goes without saying, however, that discretion must be reasonably and wisely exercised, in the light of the attendant circumstances. Some reasonable deferment of the proceedings may be allowed or tolerated to the end that cases may be adjudged only after full and free presentation of evidence by all the parties, especially where the deferment would cause no substantial prejudice to any part. The desideratum of a speedy disposition of cases should not, if at all possible, result in the precipitate loss of a party's right to present evidence and either in plaintiffs being non-suited or of the defendant's being pronounced liable under an ex parte judgment. (Emphasis ours.)

Accordingly, the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure must prevail at all times, absent the showing of exceptional circumstances that would justify reasonable delays in the proceedings before it. The filing of any dilatory motion before the Commission undermines its legal processes - processes which must be accorded

sId. 6 It is apparent from a reading of Rule 1, 2006 ERC Rules of Practice and Procedure that the Commission aims to ensure the least expensive and most expeditious determination of all proceedings before the commission on its merits. 7 G.R. No. 161379, ii August 2005.

G.R. No. L- 38570, 24 May 1988.

ERC CASE NO. 2016-084 RC Order/05 DECEMBER 2017 of 16

due respect and obedience. The Commission remains vigilant in preventing any dilatory maneuver intended to delay the final resolution and disposition of all its proceedings.

1. DENY NASECORE's prayer in the Urgent Motion to cross-examine Applicants' witnesses.

The rights of parties in a proceeding before the Commission are provided under Section 4, Rule 8 of the ERC Rules of Practice and Procedure (RPP), to wit:

Section 4. Rights of Parties. - At any proceeding before the Commission, each party of record is entitled to enter an appearance, introduce evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, make arguments, make and argue motions and generally participate in the proceeding. (Emphasis supplied.)

Cross-examination of witnesses is to be done after the Applicants present their evidence and before formally offering their exhibits, as provided in Section 5, Rule 18 of the RPP.

The right of an admitted Intervenor to examine and cross-examine witnesses is accorded by the RPP. However, the failure of Intervenor NASECORE in the instant case to appear during public hearings despite due notice is tantamount to a waiver of its right to cross-examine. As aptly held by the Supreme Court in the 2017 case of Dy Teban Trading, Inc. v Peter Dy, Johnny Dy and Ramon Dy'°:

9 Section 5, Rule 18 of the ERC Rules of Practice and Procedure (RPP): (a) The party initiating the proceeding shall present its evidence by offering the

affidavits and supporting documents of its witnesses and such additional evidences as it may wish to present. In consolidated proceedings, all parties initiating the consolidated proceeding shall first present their evidence;

(b) The witnesses shall be cross-examined by the respondent, opposing party or intervenors;

(c) The party initiating the proceeding may, if it deems necessary, ask questions on re-direct examination on matters covered during the cross-examination of its witness and the respondent; the opposing party or intervenors shall thereafter be allowed to conduct re-cross-examination on matters covered by the re-direct examination of the witness;

(d) After presentation of its witnesses, the party initiating the proceeding shall formally offer its exhibits;

(e) The respondent, opposing party or intervenors, as the case may be, shall then present their evidence in the same manner;

(f) Presentation of rebuttal or sur-rebuttal evidence may be allowed subject to the discretion of the Commission.

G.R. No. 185647, 26 July 2017.


The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process. However, the right is a personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record.57 (Citations omitted.) (Emphasis supplied.)

The waiver of the right to cross-examine a witness may be express or implied. In these instances, no violation of the constitutional right to due process is committed as the party himself or herself has opted not to exercise the right. The validity of a waiver of the right to cross-examine is recognized in our jurisdiction. The difficulty, however, is in cases where the waiver of the right is only implied. An implied waiver may take various forms. In ascertaining whether a party has waived his or her right to cross-examine a witness, this Court has identified a general standard that depends, for its application, on the surrounding facts of each particular case. In Savory Luncheonette, this Court said that a party may be deemed to have waived his or her right to cross-examine a witness when he or she was given an opportunity to confront and cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to do so for reasons attributable to himself or herself alone.5 8 (Citations omitted.) (Emphasis supplied.)

NASECORE, in its Urgent Motion, admitted its absence during the previous hearings and proceeded to justify its non-appearance on account of lack in regular fundsll. However, the reason advanced by Intervenor NASECORE does not show good cause to excuse its absence.

Section 7 on cross-examination in the RPP's Rule 18 provides that:

Section 7. Cross-examination. - Cross- examination of the witness presenting such written

it Allegation 12 of the Urgent Motion reads: NA5ECORE's absence during the previous hearings can readily be justified. Being a non-stock, non-profit organization, NA5ECORE has no regular funds to defray the costs of clerical and messengerial work to photocopy and send out pleadings as well as to send its representatives to attend each and every hearing scheduled by this Honorable Commission.


testimony shall proceed and terminate at the hearing at which it is authenticated by the witness, unless the Commission or presiding officer for good cause shall otherwise direct. In the cross-examination of witnesses, only relevant, pertinent and material questions necessary to enlighten the Commission on the issues shall be allowed.

Also included in NASECORE's Urgent Motion is a manifestation that it does not intend to waive its right to cross-examine the witnesses of Applicants. NASECORE justified its absence during the hearings by alleging that it has no regular funds to defray the costs of clerical and messengerial work to photocopy and send out pleadings as well as to send its representatives to attend each and every hearing scheduled by the Commission.

It must be noted that the Urgent Motion was only filed one hundred twenty-five (125) days or four (4) months after the last FOE was submitted and two hundred fifty-one (251) days or eight (8) months after the 22 November 2016 hearing.

The Commission believes that the belated filing of the Urgent Motion cannot be excused by the fact, as alleged by NASECORE, that it lacked funds and resources to file the necessary pleadings in a timely manner and attend the scheduled hearings. The explanation advanced by NASECORE of its failure to attend the hearings could have been raised early on before the FOEs were filed through a written motion or other means with least cost to notify the Commission of the constraints it faces in appearing and participating in the proceedings.

It is ultimately within the exercise of the Commission's discretion to determine what circumstances it would deem acceptable as to warrant the relaxation of its procedural rules, especially those which provide for reglementary periods. In the instance case, the exceptional circumstance put forth by NASECORE does not sufficiently justify the unreasonably long period of delay it had incurred before filing its Urgent Motion.

It is worthy of note that Intervenor NASECORE was given all the opportunities to appear during the hearings, participate in the proceedings, and exercise its rights as party-intervenor. However, NASECORE slept on its rights and is already barred by laches. Laches


has been defined in the case of Pinausukan Seafood House v. Far• East Bank & Trust Cornpany12, as:

Laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence could nor should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. Its other name is stale demands, and it is based upon grounds of public policy that requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted. (Citations omitted.) x x x

In view of NASECORE's failure to timely assert their right as a party in the instant case, the prayer to conduct cross-examination included in the Urgent Motion should be denied.

2. DENY the Urgent Motion for Production of Documents by reason of the denial of its prayer to cross-examine Applicants' witnesses.

In the Urgent Motion, NASECORE prayed before the Commission to direct Applicants to submit the following documents:

a) The load profile and actual power purchases in kilowatt-hours (kWh) of MERALCO for the past twelve (12) months prior to the filing of the said applications up to the present;

b) Copy of the simulation of the impact of the rate subject of these applications to the current rates;

c) The existing approved Power Supply Contracts (PSCs) of MERALCO;

d) A table showing the computation of MERALCO's monthly generation charges for the past five () years prior to the filing of the said applications showing the purchases in kWh, energy sales, basic generation costs, other costs adjustments, total generation charge for the month, average generation

12 G.R. No. 159926,20 January 2014.

ERC CASE NO. 2016-084 RC Order/05 DECEMBER 2017

of 16

charge for the previous month, average generation charge for the month and the increase/decrease column for each of its contracted power suppliers;

e) A table showing the monthly demand versus actual deliveries and generation charge of MERALCO for the. past five () years prior to the filing of the said applications; and

f) Copy of the monthly invoice and official receipt of the individual supplier of MERALCO for the past three (3) years prior to the filing of the said applications.

Section 4, Rule 15 of the Commission's RPP provides that:

In any proceeding pending before the Commission, the Commission and any party may request such data, studies, work papers, reports, and information as are reasonably relevant to the proceeding and are permitted by these rules or by law.

Data requests by a party shall be in writing, shall be directed to the party. whom the request is made or its attorney, copy furnished the Commission, and shall specify in as much detail as possible the material requested. Oral data requests may be allowed at the Commission's or presiding officer's discretion when made on the record during a hearing. Written or oral requests for data shall include the purpose and justification therefor. Any requested material or portion thereof to which objection is not made as set forth below shall be produced for the requesting party as soon as practicable and in no event later than fifteen (15) days after service of the request, unless the time for production is otherwise shortened or extended by agreement or order of the Commission. (Emphasis supplied.)

In the same Urgent Motion, NASECORE alleged that its reason for requesting the said documents is for the conduct of its cross-examination of Applicants' witnesses, to wit:

xxx

13. Relatively, the production of the herein subject documents must first be complied and furnished to NASECORE before it can intelligibly and appropriately conduct its cross-examination of the applicants' witnesses.

ERC CASE NO. 2016-084 RC Ordcr/o5 DECEMBER 2017 of 16

14. It is for this reason that NASECORE begs the indulgence of this Honorable Commission to direct the production of the subject documents and for it to allow its cross-examination of applicants' witnesses, in order that public interest may continually be safeguarded by and through NASECORE's continued intervention in the above cases.

NASECORE contended that the inclusion and introduction of these documents will not unduly broaden the issues because these are essential in establishing and determining (a) the need for MERALCO to undertake or contract for additional electrical power and (b) the reasonableness of the rates imposed in relation to cost of recovery and its period.

NASECORE likewise asserted that the production of the above-mentioned documents is necessary for it to intelligibly and appropriately conduct its cross-examination.

In its Opposition, MERALCO argued that the Urgent Motion should be denied since NASECORE failed to (i) file it within the period allowed under the ERC Rules of Procedure and (ii) show good cause why it was filed out of time. MERALCO also argued that the same must be denied because the request for production of documents is moot, irrelevant and baseless.

On the other hand, RPE contended in its Opposition that NASECORE, for failure to avail itself of its right to cross-examination, should be deemed to have waived its right to cross-examine the Applicants' witnesses. RPE argues that Article III, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution13 cannot be cited as basis for NASECORE's Urgent Motion as such only applicable to official acts, transactions, decisions or government research data. Lastly, RPE avers that the documents requested by NASECORE are either readily available, as they are already public documents, or irrelevant to the instant Application.

MERALCO and RPE thus pray that the Urgent Motion be denied.

Pursuant to Section 4, Rule 15 of the Commission's RPP, the motion to produce the documents to be used in the conduct of its cross-examination must be denied.

13 Supra at Note 8.

ERC CASE NO. 2016-084 RC Order/05 DECEMBER 2017 of 16

Intervenor NASECORE's reason for requesting the above-listed documents is for it to be able to "intelligibly and appropriately conduct its cross-examination." With the denial of its prayer to cross-examine the Applicants' witnesses, the purpose and justification upon which NASECORE anchored its request can no longer stand.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Urgent Motion for Production of Documents (with Prayer for Cross-examination of Applicants' Witnesses) filed by Intervenor National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc. (NASECORE) on 31 July 2017 is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Pasig City, 05 December 2017.

FOR AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION:

JOSEFINA PATRJáI4&IIAGPALE-ASHUT Com1s'1skner

fnt rJW LS: MCC/c&RWAPV

Copy furnished:

1. Ally. Francis Dino S. Antonio, Ally. Carmen Grace S. Ramos, Angelica Diane B. Monteza Counsel for Applicant MERALCO 7th Floor, Lopez Building, Ortigas Avenue, Brgy. Ugong, Pasig City

2. Atty. Joshua Gilbert F. Paraiso, Atty. Roberto Miguel D. Ramiro and Atty. Lara Victoria Estevez Counsel for Applicant RPE 10/F 8 Rockwell Plaza cor. Hidalgo Drive Rockwell Center, Makati City

3. Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) Applicant Lopez Building, Ortigas Avenue, Brgy. Ugong, Pasig City

4. Redondo Peninsula Energy, Inc. (RPE) Applicant Unit 310, The Venue, Rizal Highway Subic Bay Industrial Park, Phase 1

Subic Bay Freeport Zone, Philippines


5. Atty. Rafael Antonio M. Acebedo Counsel for Intervenor NASECORE National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc. (NASECORE) No. 85 Independencia St., Tacloban City

6. National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms, Inc. (NASECORE) Intervenor No. 85 Independencia St., Tacloban City

7. Matuwid na Singil sa Kuryente Consumer Alliance, Inc. (MSK) Unit 327, Eagle Court Condominium, Matalino Road, Diliman, Quezon City

8. Mr. Romeo L. Junia No. 8, Kaimito Road, Nayong Silangan, Brgy. Dalig, Antipolo City

9. Gargantiel Ilagan & Atanante Counsel for Junia 2nd Floor, Times Square Building No. 57 Times Street corner Examiner Street West Triangle, Quezon City 1104

10. Ms. Fe R. Bait Aniban ng Manggagawa sa Agrikultura (AMA) Apartment C, Harry's Apartment, Road i, Maria Magdalena Subdivision, San Juan, Balagtas, Bulacan

ii. Mr. Gerard C. Arances Center for Energy, Ecology and Development (CEED) Room 1, 29 P. Matimtiman St., Brgy. Teacher's Village, Quezon City

12. Mr. Samuel Cesar M. Gamboa Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) ii Matimpiin St., Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City

13. Mr. Bibiano C. Rivera, Jr. Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ) 13 Mabait St., Brgy. Teacher's Village, Quezon City

14. Atty. Jose M. Aaron Pedrosa, Jr. Sanlakas National 29 P Matimtiman St., Brgy. Teacher's Village, Quezon City

15. Mr. Lynie L. Olimpo Koalisyong Pabahay ng Pilipinas (KPP) 29 P Matimtiman St., Brgy. Teacher's Village, Quezon City

16. Mr. Uriel G. Borja BSA Towers, 1 o8 Legaspi Street Makati City

Approved for - Energy Regulatory Commission

Documents

Transcript of Approved for - Energy Regulatory Commission