At least four (4) former directors of the First Catanduanes Electric Cooperative, Inc. (FICELCO) will file a motion for reconsideration within 15 days from receipt of the decision of the National Electrification Administration (NEA) that dismissed them and three other colleagues from their posts.
According to a statement from the “FICELCO Board of Directors” allegedly sent to the local media by Atty. Raul V. Angeles, who had represented District VII (Viga, Panganiban and Bagamanoc), the affected directors will file the motion and pursue the appropriate legal remedies while continuing to respect the law and the proper legal process.
In a decision on NEA Administrative Case No. 09-05-26 dated Sept. 1, 2026 and released the following day, the NEA Board of Administrators headed by Energy Secretary Sharon S. Garin as chairperson found Angeles, Myrna SJ. Carilimdiliman of District V (Virac), Emma T. Bueno of District IV (San Miguel), Alicia F. Arcilla of District III (San Andres), Arsenia G. Bernacer of District VI (Caramoran and Pandan), and Salvacion T. Lee of District II (Bato) guilty of Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Cooperative.
They were meted the “supreme penalty of removal from office with inherent administrative disabilities of cancellation of eligibility to run for the position of ECV Director, forfeiture of retirement benefits and incentives, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment from any electric cooperative.”
On the other hand, Dir. Romeo D. Santos of District I (Baras and Gigmoto) was found guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and was penalized with suspension from office for a period of 30 days.
Santos will no longer serve the penalty as it will be credited to the full 90-day preventive suspension of the seven FICELCO directors ordered by NEA on June 1, 2026.
Board favored company owned by Hector Sanchez
It may be recalled that last May 22, 2026, NEA Administrator Antonio Mariano C. Almeda directed the board members to show cause within 48 hours from receipt of the order why no disciplinary action should be imposed upon them for favoring S.C. Megaworld Construction and Development Corporation (SCMCDC) owned by former Congressman Hector Sanchez in connection with the bidding for the second Emergency Power Supply Agreement.
SCMCDC had been disqualified by the FICELCO Evaluation Committee for failure to comply with material requirements under the EPSA 2 Terms of Reference, including the lack of the required 500,000 liters of fuel storage capacity and the absence of at least 10 years of experience in operating power plants in off-grid areas.
The NEA noted the findings contained in the committee’s position paper that despite this, the BOD allowed SCMCDC to submit a revised proposal reflecting a higher tariff than indicated in its original submission which would ultimately impose an additional burden on consumers.
“Such action by the Board clearly constituted a deviation from the applicable policies and guidelines governing power supply procurement,” Administrator Almeda stated.
In a special meeting held May 19, 2026, the FICELCO board evaluated the proposal of the Sanchez company, despite voting 4-3 several days earlier to accept the competing proposal of Isla Dagyab.
Three days earlier, the Board allowed SCMCDC to submit a revised proposal and instructed the Evaluation Committee to re-evaluate the revised proposals notwithstanding their earlier findings.
Subsequently, SCMCDC submitted a draft Power Supply Agreement (PSA) in lieu of a revised proposal.
The committee, however, stood its ground and submitted to the Board a re-evaluation that concluded that SCMCDC remained non-compliant with the material requirements of the TOR.
Upon receipt of the evaluation committee’s findings, NEA Deputy Administrator for Electric Cooperative Management Services Omar M, Mayo disapproved FICELCO Board Resolution No. 87, Series of 2026, awarding EPSA 2 to SCMCDC and upheld the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee to rescind the award to SCMCDC, affirm the findings of the committee, and recognize the compliant bidder – Isla Dagyab Energy Corporation – as the qualified proponent, among others.
In response, the FICELCO Board reportedly told NEA that it acted in good faith in its effort to ensure uninterrupted and stable delivery of electricity to member-consumer-owners.
It acknowledged the findings of the agency on the qualifications and deficiencies of SCMCDC and the acceptance of its revised proposal and vowed to take necessary corrective actions.
They subsequently passed another resolution awarding the contract to Isla Dagyab.
In resolving the issue of the FICELCO directors’ administrative liability, the NEA Board of Administrators emphasized at the outset that the respondents did not dispute the factual circumstances of the case and their defenses mostly revolved around allegations of good faith and alleged lack of malice.
However, the NEA board said that the respondents’ defense that they merely relied “in good faith” on the reports and recommendations of management, finance and technical personnel cannot be given any consideration.
“Truly, if these Respondents relied on the management of the cooperative for ‘technical matters’ then they would not have awarded to SCMCDC the EPSA II as the management itself found the former to be non-compliant with the EPSA II TOR,” it stated.
On their claim that the issuance of Board Resolution No. 87 was based on a price consideration which would have been beneficial to FICELCO’s member consumer owners, the NEA Board pointed out that any evaluation based on economical or financial concerns should only be resorted to once compliance with the TOR had been established.”
It also described as “erroneous” the directors’ argument that under the Government Procurement Reform Act (RA 9184) negotiated procurement dispensed with certain requirements in open, public and competitive bidding.
The governing rules in the case are the Department of Energy’s Department Circular No. DC 2025-10-0022 or the amendment to DC No. DC2023-06-0021, which is the policy for the mandatory conduct of the Competitive Selection Process by the Distribution Utilities for the procurement of power supply for their captive market, the NEA Board emphasized.
It averred that the negotiated nature of a procurement does not dispense with the capabilities of the supplier, which in the case is lacking, as determined by SCMCDC’s non-compliance with the TOR.
On Angeles and Lee’s justification citing the Energy Regulatory Commission’s letter declaring that “any concerns regarding eligibility… can be resolved later,” the Board said that a plain and simple reading of the latter showed that what the ERC referred to as “eligibility” which can be “resolved later” is the EPSA II’s qualification for UCME subsidy.
“Worse, it appears that Respondents Angeles and Lee deliberately omitted the working in the ERC letter which clearly and undeniably showed that the eligibility to be resolved later pertains to the grant of subsidy,” the NEA Board stated. “To use an incomplete quote to argue that non-compliance with the TOR was based on the ERC’s advice is a grossly misleading, if not fraudulent, misrepresentation of official communications from a government agency.”
On the other hand, on the supposed corrective action of BR No. 89 as a defense, this cannot be considered a defense for the simple reason that the issuance of BR No. 87 was already fait accompli – it was already an accomplished fact.
The respondents’ claim that defects of SCMCDC could be addressed during the post-qualification stage is not tenable, the NEA stressed, as the nature of post-qualification is that it is meant to verify and validate that the subject entity has passed all the requirements and conditions.
The actions of the six respondents in issuing BR No. 87 to SCMCDC despite knowledge of the latter’s non-compliance with the TOR “constituted transgression of established and definite rule of action with the willful intent to violate the same” and are likewise negligent, showing willful indifference to the consequences.
Worse, it said, the Grave Misconduct, Gross Negligence and Conduct Prejudicial to the Cooperative is compounded by the respondents’ admission that SCMCDC was allowed to amend its original price quotation.
“This arbitrary display of undue preference in favor of SCMCDC does indeed constitute an abuse of discretion which should not be countenanced,” the NEA Board concluded.
In the message sent to the media, the dismissed BOD members disagreed with the findings and penalties imposed, arguing that none of them personally benefitted from the transaction and that their decisions were made in good faith.
“Our paramount concern was, and remains, the interest and welfare of member-consumer – to secure competitively priced, reliable, and sustainable power for the cooperative and the communities we serve,” it said.
It is not certain who among the six sacked directors are joining Angeles in filing a motion for reconsideration as the statement itself was unsigned but it is claimed that those likely to contest the adverse ruling are Angeles, Bueno, Arcilla and Lee.
Both Lee and Arcilla had 22 months left on their term, Angeles still had 10 months to go before the decision came out while Bueno was reelected last July 25, 2026 for her second term as director.
The two-year stints of Bernacer, who was on her third and last term, and first-termer Carilimdiliman, both ended this Sept. 4, 2026.
Beginning last Saturday, their districts are now represented by Dir. Jorge I. Tabirara of District VI (Caramoran and Pandan) and Dir. Antonio T. Maliñana Jr. of District V (Virac), who took their oaths of office before FICELCO General Manager Engr. Francis A. Gianan on Sept. 4.