Court Denies Bid to Stop SOCOTECO II–Ignite Power Negotiations

GENERAL SANTOS CITY — The Regional Trial Court (RTC) in General Santos City has denied a petition seeking to stop the ongoing negotiations between South Cotabato II Electric Cooperative (SOCOTECO II) and Ignite Power over a proposed joint venture.

In a five-page Order dated July 6, 2026, RTC Branch 35 denied the application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of Preliminary Injunction filed by members of the CDA Conversion Task Force against the implementation of SOCOTECO II Board Resolution No. 28.

The order was issued by Presiding Judge Roel John M. Ladezain in Special Civil Case No. 26-916.

The petition was filed by Felipe Galla, Arthur Aller, Virgilio Alconera, Ronnie Labajo, Norma Quezon, and Rebecca Magante.

The petitioners sought to stop the implementation of Board Resolution No. 28, which declared Ignite Power’s unsolicited proposal “acceptable in principle” and authorized SOCOTECO II management to proceed with discussions and negotiations for a possible joint venture.

They argued that instead of negotiating with Ignite Power, the SOCOTECO II Board of Directors should initiate the conversion of the electric cooperative into a stock cooperative under the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA), as provided under Presidential Decree No. 269, as amended by Republic Act No. 10531.

According to the petitioners, continuing negotiations with Ignite Power could prejudice what they claimed was their right to pursue the cooperative’s conversion.

However, the court ruled that the petitioners failed to establish the legal requirements necessary for the issuance of injunctive relief.

Court: No Clear Right Shown

In its order, the RTC said the petitioners failed to demonstrate a “clear and unmistakable right” requiring immediate judicial protection.

The court explained that existing law provides electric cooperatives with several organizational options. These include remaining as a non-stock, non-profit electric cooperative, converting into a stock cooperative under the CDA, or reorganizing into a stock corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The order emphasized that the authority to determine which organizational structure to adopt belongs to the electric cooperative itself through its governing processes—not directly to individual member-consumer-owners.

The court also noted that SOCOTECO II’s bylaws do not expressly authorize individual members to initiate the conversion process.

Negotiations May Continue

The RTC further found that the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence showing that Board Resolution No. 28 or the ongoing negotiations with Ignite Power would result in actual or imminent injury.

According to the court, the board resolution merely authorizes negotiations and discussions. It does not prevent SOCOTECO II from pursuing conversion into a stock cooperative in the future should the cooperative later decide to do so.

The court likewise ruled that the petitioners failed to show that a TRO or preliminary injunction was the only plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to protect their claimed rights.

NEA Jurisdiction Issue Deferred

During the proceedings, the respondents argued that the petitioners should have first exhausted available administrative remedies before the National Electrification Administration (NEA), which exercises primary jurisdiction over disputes involving electric cooperatives.

The petitioners countered that seeking relief before the NEA would have been futile, alleging that the agency had participated in or influenced the actions they were questioning.

The court, however, found no evidence to support that allegation.

While acknowledging the respondents’ position regarding the NEA’s primary jurisdiction, the RTC deferred ruling on the jurisdictional issue until after the respondents formally file their answer to the complaint.

TRO Application Denied

“In fine, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the concurrence of the essential requisites” for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction, the court said in its order.

The dispositive portion of the decision stated that the application for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction is denied for lack of merit.

The main case remains pending before the Regional Trial Court.