In a press statement, EEI and GPI lamented that what appeared in the press recently were slanted in favor of Allied Bank, which they sued for foreclosure of property, and that these articles "failed to bring out the whole picture/scenario."
"None of these write ups bear the whole truth and instead, contradict what were on record with the Court. Wittingly or unwittingly, the source failed to bring out the whole picture purposely to favor the other party for a valuable consideration," the statement said.
EEI-GPI, whose president is Jose Go, narrated instead how the civil suit against Allied Bank started, citing the alleged maneuverings and contemptible moves made by it – from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals.
According to them, they won against Allied Bank and obtained in April 2000 a writ of preliminary injunction which prevented the bank from taking over the properties in question, including the premises.
Allied filed an appeal but lost. However, while the order was still in effect, the bank filed in Aug. 2001 a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession without even informing them of the suit.
"With undue haste and as expected, Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda rendered a decision granting Allied’s petition. EEI-GPI came to know of this only after said decision was rendered," a portion of the two-page statement read.
A month later (September 2001), Allied then "took possession of the premises," prompting EEI-GPI to seek the help of the CA which later issued a temporary restraining order against Maceda‘s order to stop the sheriffs from carrying out his order.
But the Gotesco Group said the bank ignored the CA cease-and-desist order, saying "there is nothing more to be restrained with the consequent turn over of possession to Allied Bank."
The appellate court then issued another ruling, this time specifying that Allied "surrender the possession of the property to Ever Emporium." "Again, Allied Bank paid no heed to such resolution," Gotesco complained.
Eventually, EEI-GPI said they got a favorable ruling from the lower court directing the deputy sheriff and the Las Piñas police to take "actual possession of the (Gotesco) premises free from the interference of Allied Bank without delay."
The sheriffs and police complied with the March 25 order and ‘"as per sheriff’s return, the actual physical possession of the premises has been duly turned over to Ever."
"Thus, from that time (March 25, 2001), until now, EEI and GPI have been in control and possession of the premises," they reiterated. A day after, however, the CA issued a TRO which turned out was the same freeze order ignored by the bank.
"However, a mere cursory perusal of the records would distinctly show that this much vaunted TRO was served only on March 26, a day after the order sought to be restrained has been fully implemented," they explained.
EEI-GPI emphasized that such TRO may be "considered as without any legal efficacy" – which is the very same argument Allied Bank used in going against the CA ruling nullifying Maceda’s order and stopping the sheriff from implementing such.
"Given the above narration of facts, the readers may well be appraised of the real truth behind this Gotesco-Allied Bank recent fiasco and do away with some "misinformation peddled by sources with malicious intentions," it said.