Electrocution-6

The more I read the positions of the two contending parties in Central Negros Electric Cooperative, the more I am convinced that there is more than just the matter of the termination of the services of Sulpicio Lagarde Jr. as general manager of the coop.

Nevertheless, I suggest that the two parties come to the table and find ways to put an end to their legal battle. Of course, I can understand if the Ceneco board will not be inclined to rehire Lagarde. So much animosity had been generated by this conflict but who knows? If Japan and the Philippines that has lost over a million of its people due the Japanese aggression and atrocities can come to terms and work together in the spirit of understanding, friendship and respect for each other, why not Lagarde, Ceneco President Arnel Lapore and the board? Unless the issue is more than what appears at the surface.

I believe that it is for their best and long terms interest to come to terms. The legal battle can swing two ways and more than what their position papers show will be dragged to the public domain. In any negotiation to put an end to their conflict, one must give up something to the other. Indeed one cannot have it all. The complexities of their conflict means this will remain unresolved for years. Both will come out of this quarrel with deep wounds.

Be that as it may, let us continue with the response of Lapore on the charge that he should have been disqualified as director because he was an executive assistant of La Carlota City. Lapore asserts that his second term as director of the Ceneco board started in July 2012 and ended in March 2015. At the time of his term in the board the law (RA 10513) was not in effect. This law took effect in June 2013. How then could the law have affected him? Surely it cannot because a law can never have a retroactive effect except when it is beneficial for those affected. As Lapore quotes that “there is no crime if there is no law punishing it.”

In response to the claim of his illegal dismissal the board claimed that Lagarde had been remiss in this duty particularly in relation to the power supply agreements. Their discussions are highly technical but in sum, the board blames Lagarde of whatever problems arose from the contracts. The board asserts that Lagarde knew all the contents of the contracts as he was the one who briefed the board where Lagarde appeared to be an “all-knowing committee when it comes to power contracting, power supply agreement and rate making.”

In effect the board accused Lagarde of failure to “perform his functions as General Manager” on several points. The board listed nine instances of Lagarde's alleged failures. Foremost of this is that Lagarde failed “to provide the Board and its various committees with sufficient information on a timely basis in regard to the company's business and in particular with respect to the company's performance, financial condition, operating results and prospects to enable the Board and those committees to fulfill their governance responsibilities.”

Largarde, as I wrote in earlier columns on his side of this controversy, had accused the board of bias in favor of a particular power supplier. In response the board claims that in a particular case of KEPCO contract which is part of Lagarde's complaint that contract bore the signature of Lagarde. Thus the board charged that Lagarde “fooled the board into believing that the transaction it entered into is for the best interest of CENECO. Lagarde should be made accountable...”

A serious allegation of Lagarde involves the personal instruction to the Screening Committee during the Ceneco election last year. Elections should be free and therefore those mandated to conduct it should be independent.

Lagarde claims that Lapore called the chair of the Committee as incompetent; Lapore denied he did rather that he called the person as “confused” when she continued to perform her duties although it had already completed its task. Instead of refraining from further action she sought the opinion of NEA and that opinion became the basis for the Committee to disqualify one of the candidates and insured the election of the lone candidate.

Lapore contends that it should be the aggrieved party not the Committee to seek an opinion on appeal. The action of the Committee pre-emptied the aggrieved candidate and compromised its independence.

Let's continue tomorrow.*

back to top