Unsubstantiated accusations

We write to address the malicious accusations published today (Sept. 11) in the column of Mr. Federico Pascual Jr. entitled, “Meralco-GSIS case wasn’t 1st SEC decision of Roxas”. The article, hurled against the directors of Philcomsat Holdings Corporation (PHC) contained baseless, unsubstantiated and one-sided allegations unsupported by any evidence in law and in fact.

First, the article referred to a case entitled, “Manuel H. Nieto, Jr. vs. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.” and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 94038. It should be clarified that it was not Attys. Luis Lokin Jr. and Alma Kristina Alobba who “ran to the CA to stop the SEC from enforcing its order”. It was the petitioner himself, Amb. Manuel Nieto Jr. who filed the action to question the assailed orders of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which was rendered despite patent lack of jurisdiction. The Petition dated 10 April 2006 was verified by Amb. Nieto himself.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Pascual did not take time to verify the aforementioned fact. In a blatant display of bias and partiality, Mr. Pascual instead made himself a witting tool of a group of individuals whose only agenda is to vilify, malign and destroy the reputation and character of the persons of our clients, in obvious retaliation for the various legal setbacks that said group suffered.

The allegation that Atty. Lokin is a “suspended lawyer” is clearly not germane to the subject matter of the column. It was clearly inserted for the sole purpose of maligning the name and reputation of Atty. Lokin. To set the record straight, Atty. Lokin is currently a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing, actively engaged in the practice of his profession and is an elected officer of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Manila III Chapter.

Second, the alleged memorandum cited by Mr. Pascual as an “agreement with other shareholders” is doubtful and questionable since the same was entered into by purported representatives whose authorities are being assailed in other pending legal controversies and lawsuits involving the families. Specifically, the private shareholdings of these purported shareholders are still subject of a pending Sandiganbayan case. At any rate, in Nieto vs. SEC, the CA upheld the petitioner since it was patent that SEC lacked jurisdiction to issue the assailed orders in light of the transfer of the SEC’s jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies to the Regional Trial Courts. It was thus correct for the CA to tackle jurisdictional issues and strike down any order that is void in the first place. It is basic jurisprudence that jurisdiction is vested and governed by law and does not depend on the acts or agreement of litigants.

Third, it is easy to accuse a person to have committed bribery and extortion but it is difficult to prove it, especially if the truth reveals otherwise. It is unfortunate that Mr. Pascual is assailing a sound and valid issuance of the Court of Appeals on the mere ground that one of the justices is now subject of a controversy — a controversy that is totally separate and different from Nieto vs. SEC. We strongly deny and condemn any allegation that the corporation spent for “extra-legal expenses”. PHC prosecutes its legal actions on their respective merits and on the basis of established jurisprudence.

The one-sided and malicious allegations of Mr. Pascual, citing Ms. Erlinda Bildner as his source, are parts of a harassment plan directed to discredit and get back at the winning litigants. In fact, the desperation of Ms. Bildner and her cohorts has led to numerous violations of the criminal laws and they are now subjects of investigation for robbery and other charges (I.S. No. 08E4672-73; I.S. No. 06-J-114405 / CA-G.R. CR No. 31443; and I.S. No. 08-B 1558).

Fourth, the hearsay and lopsided allegations should not have precluded Mr. Pascual from divulging the truth. As to the allegation that the monies of PHC were spent for “representation expenses for the Supreme Court, the Sandiganbayan, the PCGG and the SEC”, the same are all fabrications and falsities. When Ms. Bildner and her cohorts ransacked the PHC office on different occasions, they were able to take away the financial documents, papers, records and other properties of the corporation. Ms. Bildner and her group utilized the same as an opportunity to set up the corporation and make it appear that PHC spent illegal disbursements and expenses. The truth, however, cannot be buried; evidences and investigations would show that PHC never committed the acts invented by Ms. Bildner and her cohorts.

Professional responsibility should have dictated Mr. Pascual to verify and confirm the contents of his column. Mr. Pascual’s one-sided and unsubstantiated accusations against the court-upheld Board of Directors of PHC is clearly meant to dissuade the latter from protecting their rights and prosecuting existing causes of actions before the courts of justice.

We hope that we have clarified our position on the matter and we trust that the unbiased, malicious and unfair publications of any articles/items as that published by Mr. Pascual shall not be printed again in your prestigious newspaper. We also hope that we shall be given the same prominent space in your paper to air our side and finally set the records straight. — PITERO M. REIG, Tolentino Corvera Macasaet & Reig Attorneys & Counsellors at Law