Another Libel Case Dismissed

Last July 23, the PEP Coalition received a copy of the decision (dated July 14, 2008) from the Court of Appeals 8th Division composed of Associate Justice Bienvendio L. Reyes, Chairman, Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas and Associate Justice Apolinario. D. Burselas on one of our libel cases which was elevated by the Yuchengco group to the higher court.  This is the case under Branch 57  where we won our motion to quash.

The appeal of the Yuchengco group has been dismissed and all arguments of our lawyers affirmed.

Keep your hopes up. Justice, while grinding slowly, will eventually prevail.

Alaras Dismisses Libel Case

We have just been provided a copy of the Judge Selma Alaras, Makati RTC Branch 62 decision dismissing the LIBEL case filed against the Board of Directors of the PEP Coalition. She ends her decision *strongly chastising the YGC* which is quoted verbatim below:

” *III. ON LACK OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY*

*After* all has been said and done, the court takes this opportunity to note that after all the philanthropic deeds and act of the Yuchengco Group of Companies sought to establish and achieve to justify their continued existence, in a singular act of extreme self preservation, they appear to have forgotten a very real and familiar motto now being espoused by *uber *corporations: *CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

* It is the hope of the Court that those who profess themselves as responsible corporations go beyond the breath and length of their financial statements and balance sheets to remember that *futures are not made by profits alone.*”

We salute Judge Alaras for echoing so eloquently our very own sentiments. May JUSTICE prevail and may other members of the judicial system be as discerning as Judge Sela Palacio Alaras.
God bless all who continue to fight for truth, justice and good corporate governance *against all odds*.

PLEASE PASS SO IT MAY REACH THE HEARTS OF ALL WHO CAN DO SOMETHING TO EASE THE PLIGHT OF OUR CHILDREN.

Judge Pozon Dismisses Motion for Reconsideration re Libel Case

(Last May 23, 2007, the Makati RTC quashed one of 13 libel cases filed against 16 officers of the PEP Coalition and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Jessie John P. Gimenez, who originally filed the libel case on behalf of the Yuchengcos, filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 19, 2007. Below is RTC 139’s decision dismissing Mr. Gimenez’ Motion for Reconsideration)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

BRANCH CXXXIX (139)

MAKATI CITY

CRIM. CASE NO. 06-875

FOR LIBEL

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Complainant,

- versus -

PHILIP PICCIO, ET AL.,

Accused

x ————————–x

ORDER

This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration filed on June 19, 2007 by the prosecution, through the private prosecutor, with Opposition filed on June 29, 2007 by accused Wonina M. Bonifacio, Jocelyn Upano, Vicente Ortuoste and Juvencio Pereche, Jr., through counsel, and Reply filed on July 25, 2007 by the prosecution, through the private prosecutors.

The motion seeks to reconsider the Order dated May 23, 2007, which quashed the Information and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, raising the following grounds:

1. The Information sufficiently alleges that the defamatory article was printed and first published in Makati City and within the jurisdiction of this Court;

2. The Complaint-Affidavit and Reply-Affidavit of Mr. Jessie John P. Gimenez allege the requisite jurisdictional facts; and

3. The Information may only be amended following the ruling of the Supreme Court in Banal III vs. Panganiban, 475 SCRA 164 (2005).

Under the first ground raised, the prosecution asserts that the allegation in the Information is sufficient to vest the Court with jurisdiction, following the ruling of the Supreme Court in Banal III vs. Panganiban, 475 SCRA 164 (2005).

The Court, however, is not persuaded on the argument advanced by the prosecution. As previously stated, the Information fails to allege where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense, which is similar to the Informations in the case cited in the assailed Order, to wit: Agbayani vs. Sayo; G.R. No. L-47880, April 30, 1979, 89 SCRA 699; Macasaet, et al. vs. The People of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 153747, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 255; Agustin vs. Pamintuan, et. al., G.R. No. 164938, August 22, 2005; and now in the recent case of Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125813, February 6, 2007. Thus, pursuant to the rulings of the Supreme Court in the said cases, the Court finds no justifiable ground to disturb its previous finding.

Delving on the second ground raised, the Complaint-Affidavit and Reply-Affidavit of Mr. Jessie John P. Gimenez cannot cure the defect in the Information for being jurisdictional in nature. As stated in the aforecited case of Macasaet, “since the place of printing and first publication or the place of residence at the time are matters dealing with the fundamental issue of court’s jurisdiction, Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, mandates that either one of these statements must be alleged in the information itself and the absence of both from the very face of the Information renders the latter fatally defective.”

As to the last ground raised, amendment of the Information cannot be made to cure the defect considering that what is lacking in the information is the allegation on venue in accordance with Art. 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, which is jurisdictional in cases for libel. Had it been merely a matter of form, then amendment could be ordered in order to cure such a defect. This has been the finding of the Supreme Court in the aforecited case of Agustin vs. Pamintuan, which squarely applies to the instant case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

Furnish copies of this Order to the parties and their respective counsels and th 4th Asst. City Prosecutor Benjamin S. Vermug, Jr.

SO ORDERED.

Given in Chambers this 11th day of February 2008 at Makati City.

BENJAMIN T. POZON

Presiding Judge

(Original Signed)

Our Latest Victory in the Courts

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Pacific Plan holders chalk up win in CA

by Jomar Canlas, manilatimes.net, Sept. 4, 2007THE Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court ruling that denied a group of Pacific Plan policy holders a say in rehabilitating the company. In a decision penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao and promulgated on August 28, the Court of Appeals’ 5th Division ordered the Makati Regional Trial Court to let the plan holders led by the PEP (Parents Enabling Parents) Coalition present evidence in the case involving the rehabilitation of Pacific Plan Inc. The judge hearing the case, Romeo Barza, had said the PEP Coalition could not oppose the rehabilitation of Pacific Plans. The CA rebuked the judge, saying he should consider the hard-earned money the plan holders had raised for their children’s education. The appellate court dismissed the accusation of Pacific Plans that PEP and the Piezas Group (Celine Piezas, Pura Angela Manalo, Mercedes Guerrero and Jose Mari Gamboa) went forum shopping with other tribunals. In an October 10, 2006 decision, Justice Dimaampao had already said the Makati court erred in not receiving evidence, which would deprive the plan holders of their rights. With the new CA ruling, the Makati court is compelled to accept evidence. Dimaampao said the Makati court should have considered the findings of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which has the expertise to tell whether Pacific Plans was liquid or not. The SEC said the corporation was liquid enough and did not need rehabilitation. The court ruled that Pacific Plans was liquid and would be able to pay its plan holders until 2014. It said its trust fund exceeds its projected benefits by P1,209,062,409.26 which does not even include interest. In a related development, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas said it would penalize the Yuchengco-controlled Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC) for “lack of prudence” in managing the Pacific Plans trust funds. In Resolution No. 574 dated May 17, 2007, the Monetary Board—the policy-making body of the central bank also warned RCBC and the RCBC-Trust and Investment Division and said that committing “similar acts on lack of prudence” in managing trust funds required under Section X401 of the manual of regulations for banks would mean stiffer sanctions. Under Part 4 of the manual of regulations for banks, violation committed by banks on any provision of the section pertaining to trust, other fiduciary business and investment management activities, would entail a fine of up to P10,000 a day from the day the violation was committed. The PEP Coalition said its members felt vindicated by the Monetary Board resolution. “The BSP findings and resulting Monetary Board resolution confirmed our charges on the collusion among RCBC, PPI and the Yuchengcos,” PEP said in a statement. On Aug. 26, 2005, PEP filed with the BSP a complaint against RCBC on the grounds that the bank violated Section 80 of the General Banking Act of 2000 and claimed that RCBC did not have adequate safeguard or compliance with interlocking relationship between trustee and trustor. The group also complained about the “dismal performance” of RCBC Trust as a fiduciary and allegedly the trust funds were “heavily invested in losing stocks.” The group accused RCBC of investing in corporations because these were wholly or partly owned by the Yuchengco Group of Companies. Included in the complaint are allegations that RCBC lent the trust funds to “unnamed borrowers” like Uniwide and purchase zero-coupon US dollar-denominated bonds issued by the National Power Corp. (Napocor). RCBC said it “welcomed” the BSP resolution. However, it maintains that the central bank did not say that the trust fund was not mismanaged. “While we differ with the findings of the BSP, we emphasize that the BSP has not made any findings of “mismanagement” by RCBC Trust. In particular, there were no findings of mismanagement with respect to any allegations in the complaint of PEPCI,” the bank said in a statement. --with Likha Cuevas-Miel