House probe on HGC - Lexber side

The letter of a certain Wilfredo Mutya published on Oct. 25, 2010 at Philippine STAR Opinion Page where the name of Lexber Inc. has been dragged and was written without thorough knowledge of the actual facts and events already transpired and which, if the writer would have verified, he may have known, at the outset, that his write-up borders the line of perjury.

While there was a case filed by the HGC against the officers of Lexber Inc. for estafa, the same was not filed in court, as Mr. Mutya imputes, but rather initiated by HGC before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office. This case, for lack of utter merit, was dismissed in a Resolution by the Prosecutor’s Office last Jan. 11, 2008.

On the other hand, because of the misdeeds done by HGC officials in connection with the transaction of Lexber involving Eagle Crest Subdivision, Lexber filed cases with the Office of the Ombudsman against three HGC officials, under Case Nos. omb-c-09-0250-f omb-c-a-09-0264-f, for Graft and Corrupt Practices and Administrative Case which are still pending before the said office.

In the complaint before the Ombudsman, it was clearly pinpointed therein that Lexber is claiming P28 million as its unrecouped investments in Eagle Crest Subdivision owned by HGC in Baguio City as against the minimal claims of HGC versus Lexber of P6 million. In order to protect the buyers, the court appointed rehabilitation receiver of Lexber had caused the annotation of adverse claim on all the titles of the lots involved in Eagle Crest before the Registry of Deeds concerned. This claim of Lexber against HGC has been disclosed by Lexber to its buyers in Eagle Crest. Unfortunately, Mr. Mutya’s relative was not even disclosed in his write-up, thus, is he really writing for his relative? If so, then disclosure would be the right path to fully verify the claim of his relative, and not a published unfounded opinion that tarnishes the reputation of Lexber.

The Honorable Congresswoman BH Herrera-Dy has nothing to do with the business of Lexber with HGC as she can fend for herself. For one, she already divested all her interests with Lexber since 2001. Her act of initiating a congressional inquiry is considered really as her “apparent vigilance” as Mr. Mutya indicates, being the true representative of the people and no other else. If not her, who else?