The first case was a consolidated complaint filed with the Manila Prosecutors Office by six planholders of the open-ended traditional education plans (Peptrad) led by Philip P. Piccio while the second case was filed in Parañaque by traditional education planholder, Wonina M. Bonifacio, an official of Parents Enabling Parents Coalition (PEPC). Both were dismissed for lack of merit.
In a six-page resolution, Assistant City Prosecutor Elen Nagtalon-Tumaliuan of Manila said there is no basis to support the allegations of complainants that PPI is a syndicate formed for the purpose of defrauding the public.
"It cannot be ignored that PPI has been operating as a legitimate business entity offering pre-need plans to the general public since 1966 nor can we ignore the reality that PPI sent numerous scholars to school," the resolution said.
Tumaliuan said PPI’s long history of operations and of servicing education, pension and memorial plans to the public belies the claims of the complainants that it was established merely for the purpose of committing crimes.
She also added that the respondents have no personal dealings with the complainants at the time they acquired their traditional education plan from PPI. Hence, the respondents had no opportunity to mislead or deceive complainants as to PPI’s power, capability and capacity to assume the risks inherent to the open-ended traditional education plans and to honor its contractual obligations.
The resolution stressed that it does not intend to review the findings of the trial court with respect to the rehabilitation of PPI, as it is beyond the ambit of their powers.
Meanwhile, PPI said it would abide by the Court of Appeals’ ruling remanding the pre-need firm’s rehabilitation case to the Makati Regional Trial Court to enable the Parents Enabling Parents (PEP) group of planholders to air out its concerns and present evidence.
With the CA ruling, PPI said it is now in a quandary as to whether to treat the rehab plan approved by the Makati RTC as still in effect and to pay tuition support.
PPI said it does agree that PEP or the other oppositors were not given due process in the lower court.
"Due process requirement is satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to be heard. In this case, they were given the opportunity to be heard on the alternative rehab plan. They were served with copies of the evaluation and the proposed rehab plan and there was a considerable time within which they could have submitted their oppositions or comments thereto.
That was an opportunity which they did not avail of," PPI said.