MANILA, Philippines - We write again in behalf of our client, Philcomsat Holdings Corporation (PHC) (Poblador Group), to voice our vehement objection to the patently libelous column, entitled “Judges strive to recover the judiciary’s lost luster” authored by Mr. Federico D. Pascual (“Mr. Pascual”), which was published by The Philippine STAR on 24 June 2010.
It appears that Mr. Pascual is still bent on sullying the names of directors and officers of PHC that belong to the group opposed to the group of his apparent patrons. The latest tirade of Mr. Pascual was clearly published without even a perfunctory attempt to establish veracity of the same from the parties involved, in this case, Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr.
Mr. Pascual has very obviously taken sides in the legal issues and actions involving the two groups fighting over legal control of PHC. The column in question is based entirely upon several complaints filed by the group of Erlinda Ilusorio-Bildner, which are still pending before the courts. The column totally left out the side of Atty. Lokin who was unfairly dragged in one of the complaints. This is a clear unwarranted attempt to subject our clients to a trial by publicity.
The pendency of the legal actions should have caused Mr. Pascual to exercise caution and restraints, but apparently, he freely writes about such matters without regard or respect to the proceedings and the rights and privileges of the parties and the sub judice rule. This can only be construed as an attempt on his part to influence, to a certain extent, the outcome of the cases, or obtain public sympathy to the cause of his clients.
In his column, Mr. Pascual stated that, “[Benito]” Araneta secured the loan using a false secretary’s certificate written in September 2005 by Supreme Court-suspended attorney Luis K. Lokin Jr. posing as PHC corporate secretary.” He continued that Atty. Lokin “was not the corporate secretary in September 2005 and that he lied and falsified a public document to support [Benito] Araneta’s personal loan,” and that he “appears to have concocted the meeting cited in his false certification”, among others.
First, these two cases are part of a series of harassment suits, using falsified documents. Ms. Bildner and her group, in their desperate attempt to substantiate unfounded allegations have utilized fabricated evidence and documents before the courts of justice, one of them being the alleged Secretary’s Certificate that Mr. Pascual mentioned as being signed by Atty. Lokin.
In fact, this is not the first time that Ms. Bildner used obviously fabricated and falsified document to file malicious charges against Atty. Lokin. A cursory examination of the Secretary’s Certificate would easily show that the signatures therein were forged, for Atty. Lokin never claimed, at any time, to be the corporate secretary of PHC. From the time he was elected director, he never executed any secretary’s certificate.
The question as to the genuineness of the certificate has already been raised in the tribunals where the group of Ms. Bildner attempted to have it admitted as evidence. A cursory examination of the Secretary’s Certificate would reveal that the purported signatures do not, in any way, appear to have been made by Atty. Lokin. The handwriting is very different, and the strokes are glaringly unnatural. There are also questions as to whether the original copy of this purported document was ever presented to the notary public, considering that the notary public does not have custody of the original. Moreover, on its face, he alleged certificate did not comply with the requirements of the notarial law.
Second, for the record, Atty. Lokin did not deal, directly or indirectly, with Bankwise. Nor did he represent PHC in the transactions with Bankwise. It was then Vice-President Philip Brodett and his assistant, Mr. Johnny Tan, who transacted with the bank and handled all the financial transactions of the corporation, as attested to by PHC Chairperson Concepcion Poblador and Vice-President Enrique Locsin before the courts.
Again, Mr. Pascual would like to make it appear that Atty. Lokin is allegedly the one handling the funds of PHC, when this is not the case. In fact, in his previous columns, it was also insinuated that Atty. Lokin dealt with a certain Veronica Nepomuceno, a consultant of PHC, allegedly in connection with a case filed before the Supreme Court. Minutes of the meetings and other records of PHC reveal, however, that it was not Atty. Lokin who dealt or was authorized to deal with Ms. Nepomuceno, but Mr. Brodett.
It is disappointing to note that Mr. Pascual is being fed with one-sided allegations and that his column in the Philippine STAR is being used to hurl wrongful and unfair accusations against certain individuals. There is a noticeable pattern of using falsified or spurious documents to initiate lawsuits against the PHC directors and officers, and thereafter publish the filing of these cases, especially in the columns of writers who have already been identified as sympathetic to the group of Ms. Bildner. The public is not given both sides of the story, and the danger is that such erroneous and biased reports would be repeated and mistaken as truth. This is not the first time that Mr. Pascual wrote false and damaging statements against Atty. Lokin. We trust, however, that it would be the last.
Mr. Pascual should allow the courts to make their determinations and should refrain from attempting to influence the outcome of the cases, if he is truly sincere in seeking a just resolution of all these issues.
In this regard, Mr. Pascual should be reminded that the above-mentioned issues are litis pendentia and it is impetuous to make it appear that the courts have finally disposed of the case. Said the Supreme Court in the case of Haydee Teehankee vs. Director of Prisons, et al. (G.R. No. L-278; May 4, 1946): “The publication of a criticism of a party or of the court to a pending cause, respecting the same, has always been considered as misbehavior, tending to obstruct the administration of justice and subjects such persons to contempt proceedings. Parties have a constitutional right to have their causes tried fairly in court, by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by publications or public clamor. Every citizen has profound personal interest in the enforcement of the fundamental right to have justice administered by the courts, under the protection and forms of law, free from outside coercion or interference (Copper vs. People, 13, 13 Colo., 373.)” (In re Kelly, 35 Phil. 944, 951.).
We trust that we have set the record straight. In the interest of fairness, we request that this letter-reply be printed in full in the same space where the subject article was published.