Pacific Rehouse to EIB: Don't use us as scapegoat

MANILA, Philippines - Pacific Rehouse Corp. has taken exception to recent news articles saying that the officials of Export and Industry Bank did everything to save bank while putting the blame on a legal case filed in the 1990s by a group of companies against the stock brokerage unit of EIB named EIB Securities, Inc.

In a statement, Pacific Rehouse said it appears that the party “unfairly alluded” to is the group of companies that is represented by Peter Salud of Pacific Rehouse Corp. and related companies.

Pacific Rehouse said the news articles are intended to find a scapegoat for the closure of EIB and the voluntary placing the same under receivership by the Philippine Deposit insurance Corp. (PDIC) due to the inability of the bank to meet its obligations particulary to depositors inspite of PDIC’s support. Peter Salud, president of Pacific Rehouse Corp., one of the claimant companies, said he intends to set the record straight by issuing the following statement:

“Several corporations led by Pacific Rehouse Corp. filed a case to claim the return of 32,180,000 DMCI shares, which were sold by EIB Securities, Inc. without the consent of its owners. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati ruled in favor of the corporations against EIB Securities. This was eventually sustained by the Supreme Court, which decision became final and executory. The case was remanded to the RTC of Makati for execution and is already in the execution court stage when the bank decided to close and voluntarily place itself under receivership.

“Incidentally, the RTC, as the execution court, also ruled and made a finding that EIB is also  liable since EIB Securities, Inc., is just an alter ego of the bank and they are considered one and the same. The case filed by the plaintiff corporations is a perfectly legal and valid claim that underwent judicial process for eight years.

“Also, as admitted by Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), EIB was marred by numerous cases in court not only the one filed by the corporations. One of the cases, which EIB encountered, was the one filed by Magdaleno Peña, for the services he rendered that enable him to secure judgment in the lower court that prompted him to sell the different properties owned by EIB in a public auction.

“It is also unfair to blame the closure and the placing of the bank under receivership on the case filed by the corporations as the only reason why the deal with Banko de Oro (BDO) did not prosper, the latter being considered the white knight that will rescue the bank. We are not aware what prompted EIB to surrender its operation, we are not privy to the real reason.

“The plaintiff corporations were offered property and cash settlement at very considerable reduction and was still negotiating when it was taken by surprise of EIB’s surrendering its operations. It is public knowledge that the said bank has been in distress for quite some time and under negotiation for rehabilitation. The claimants have not receive a single cent of what is due to them, which should not be attributed for the closure of the bank.

“The claimant’s corporation should not be blamed, it is unjustifiable to isolate the blame to the corporation as we are not aware of other underlying circumstances of its closure.”