Full blown crisis at Pandacan to test energy chief

Nothing like a full blown crisis to test the mettle of our national leaders. For Energy Secretary Vince Perez, his test will come in less than two weeks. Up to this time, Good News Vince had been acting like this is a problem between the oil companies and Manila Mayor Lito Atienza. His statements seem to give the impression that his only role is that of a referee. Boy! Is he in for a rude surprise!

Some weeks ago, Good News Vince and former Petron chairman Monico Jacob had a meeting on the subject of the Pandacan depots with Mayor Atienza. Nick Jacob was convinced by Vince’s predecessor, Lito Camacho, to take on the job of consultant for the Pandacan depot relocation. Lito thought rightly that it would take a Nick Jacob to get the oil companies to move a bit faster on the issue. In other words, Vince inherited Nick. Actually, based on sheer experience, Nick is more deserving of Vince’s Cabinet seat, but that’s another story.

You would have expected that in a presentation before Mayor Atienza, Good News Vince would take a united stand with his department’s consultant. Instead, he fed Nick Jacob to the wolf, so to speak. Poor Nick got devoured well and good by the forceful Mayor Atienza while Good News Vince tried to win brownie points at his expense. If I were Nick, I would simply resign the consultancy and let Good News Vince find his way from there.

Obviously, Good News Vince does not realize that the Pandacan depot issue is his problem, his first big test of political manhood. The oil companies can afford to do nothing. When D-Day comes and Mayor Atienza forces them to close the Pandacan depots, the one who would be in a real panic is the energy secretary, not them. The fact is, it is impossible to close Pandacan without dire supply disruption by month’s end.

If Good News Vince were more experienced in Philippine politics rather than Wall Street, he should have known that it was his job to ensure that the position of Mayor Atienza does not harden. It has, to some extent and the Mayor is liable to lose political points if he backs down now. Good News Vince should have used back channels to the Mayor to soften him up a bit with an offer of a reasonable and workable plan to leave Pandacan by a certain date.

At this late date, there is no alternative relocation site. There are also not enough tank trucks to deliver gasoline and diesel from the refineries in Bataan and Batangas to Metro Manila if Mayor Atienza insists on closing Pandacan by month’s end. I wonder if Good News Vince realizes how much trouble he is in right now?

Stolen checks

Some weeks ago, a reader wrote me to complain about how a foreign check sent to him through the mail got lost and was cashed via RCBC’s San Lorenzo Village branch. The check was apparently deposited by a money changer client of that RCBC branch. Since it was a second endorsed money order, the question was asked if RCBC didn’t violate any law when it accepted it and eventually cleared it.

I forwarded the e-mail of the reader to BSP Governor Paeng Buenaventura who in turn, asked Deputy Governor Alberto V. Reyes of the Supervision and Examination Sector, Department of Commercial Banks to look into the matter. About a week ago, I got a reply from Deputy Governor Reyes informing me that there is nothing wrong with banks accepting second endorsed checks, but they must be careful and may voluntarily have a policy not to accept such checks.

Mr. Reyes also said that even so, "we share your concern that the banking system provides an avenue for syndicates involved in mail thefts. Rest assured that we will revisit our regulations and take the initiative for the appropriate legislation if necessary." Additionally, Mr. Reyes said he communicated with RCBC president and chief operating officer, Valentin Araneta.

Mr. Araneta, according to Mr. Reyes, "stated that second endorsement accommodations are granted only to selected clients of the bank who are regular and established clients, creditworthy and easily accessible for problems that may result from the transaction. He further stated that in case of valid claims from the payees, the Bank will pay any such forged claims and debit the same from the client’s account."

RCBC told the BSP that the reader who wrote to me was reimbursed the amount he lost in the stolen check. What RCBC did not tell the BSP is that it took our reader six months to get his money and he had to pay for the cost of documenting and notarizing his claim. Our reader also had to take time off from work to follow up his claim.

Our reader also could have sued, but the cost of litigation would be more than the $60 face value of the check. This was probably what the syndicate was hoping for, many small value checks whose owners would not want to spend the time, energy and cost of recovery.

Our reader also disputes the claim of Mr. Araneta that RCBC only grants second endorsement accommodations to selected clients of the bank who are regular and established clients, creditworthy and easily accessible for problems that may result from the transaction. Our reader writes that "RCBC-San Lorenzo Village Branch officer-in-charge Luis Bonoan gloated that their client who deposited my money order (MO) into his account has received such complaints before at the rate of one per month. It looks like that this client’s reputation is shady at best and this case not an isolated one."

He also wrote that an acquaintance of his had three of his stolen MOs deposited at RCBC-Quezon Avenue Branch. "I urged him to sue because the offense was done to him three times. He recently got his money."

He also does not buy the claim of the BSP that we may need new legislation to stop these check stealing syndicates, at least so far as money orders are concerned. "I have done research on the Law of Negotiable Instruments and learned that checks, bonds, etc. comprise negotiable instruments while MOs are non-negotiable. The Central Bank, therefore, cannot allow this illegal activity to go on."

But it seems our reader had been victimized a second time. "I received another tampered letter from the US last May 30, 2002 and the enclosed K-Mart MO for $103 was missing. Excess glue applied to reseal the envelope made the letter stick to the interior of the envelope. I have yet to know if it has cleared. I cannot sue the post office but I can sue the bank. The thieves will never stop stealing as long as banks like RCBC continue accepting them. Is it safe to say they are an accomplice to the crime? Is the only way to stop them is to sue them?"

Looks like RCBC head office should tighten up on their branches. And that goes for other banks too. Maybe the BSP should revisit their rules a little faster and deal with this problem with the usual decisiveness of Paeng Buenaventura.

McChurch

Dr. Ernie E. contributed this one.

In children’s church on Sunday, Communion is celebrated and the minister was talking about Communion and what it is all about. "The Bible talks of Holy Communion being a ‘joyful feast’. What does that mean? Well, ‘joyful’ means happy, right? And a feast is a meal. So a ‘joyful feast’ is a happy meal. And what are the three things we need for a happy meal?"

One of the congregants answered, "Hamburger, fries, and a regular soft drink?"

(Boo Chanco’s e-mail address is [email protected])