Vicious Subic row

The ongoing fight between a group of port operators at Subic and the Harbour Centre Port Terminal Inc. (HCPTI) appears to have taken an ugly turn. Unfortunately, HCPTI found itself at the receiving end of attacks bordering at the personal. Even the sad ordeal of HCPTI founder Reghis Romero in the hands of Abu Sayaff kidnappers is being mentioned in what is beginning to look like hate-articles, as if the ordeal has anything to do with the competition for the lucrative Subic port operations.

The Romeros should expect the vicious assault. They cannot blame the present Subic port operators who appear to have been placed in negative light as the proposed joint venture between the Romeros’ HCPTI and the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) slowly becomes clearer to the public.

A lot of issues have been raised, but we hope the protagonists – both the HCPTI and the present port operators – appreciate the fact that, as far as the public is concerned, only two things matter.

First, that the government is guaranteed earnings from the Subic port come hell or high water.

Second, that the government gets the most out of the Subic port operations in terms of revenues.

That a Romero was once kidnapped by the Abu Sayaff hardly matters to the public and does not take away anything from the value of its joint venture proposal.

At this point, the comparisons are being made between how much the government stand to make under a joint venture and how much it will make under the present arrangement with the port operators. Two figures are being compared: the $32 million minimum earnings that SBMA will make in 25 years under a guaranteed scenario under the proposed joint venture; and the $16 million it will make after 25 years based on the average remittance from current port operators.

Two other sets of numbers are being compared: the P200 million investment commitment for the improvement and expansion of the port under the joint venture; and zero under the present arrangements.

Our attention has also been called about what seems to be an erroneous comparison of figures in this steamy battle between two business interests.

It will be recalled that the current port operators allege that the SBMA stands to lose revenues on the first year of the joint venture. According to them, the joint venture guarantees a revenue of only $500,000 for the first year, while current operators have remitted some $837,000 in 2009.

The comparison is erroneous, some observers pointed out. According to them, the $837,000 being bannered by the current operators are the combined income from both warehousing and port operations. The $500,000 first year minimum guaranteed income of the joint venture is for port operations alone, they add.

These observers have emphasized that the correct figure to compare would be $500,000 minimum guaranteed income from first year plus HCPTI’s P6-billion commitment to improve and develop the port facilities operations under the joint venture, and $507,000 non-guaranteed income generated by the current operators from cargo handling operations last year.

The business community hopes that this competition for the Subic port business will stay at the level of comparing revenue figures. Sober analysis is what we all can benefit from.

SAPI controversy continues

The Makati City Prosecution Office has ordered the filing of criminal charges against certain officials of the Spa Association of the Philippines (SAPI) for alleged violations of Corporation Code and for committing perjury and falsification of public documents.

The complaint was earlier filed by Marjorie Lopingco, Anthony Abaya, and Jose Ramon Golloso against respondents Catherine Turvill, Remedios Ramsay, Benjamin Eugenio Jr., Lynette Zotomayor, Zenaida Palisoc, and Jomar Fleras. The respondents later filed similar complaints against the complainants. The court consolidated the complaints since they are grounded on the same facts.

It will be recalled that Lopingco, Abaya, Golloso, together with Turvill and Ramsay served as corporate officers and board members of the SAPI until the Turvill group took over during an election held May 2 last year.

The Lopingco group claimed that the holding by the Turvill group of the May 2 election was illegal and violated provisions of the Corporation Code since it was conducted without a valid quorum, with only 51 of the 223 members on record present. It was claimed that no written notices were sent to all members at least two weeks before the special membership meeting, thereby depriving the members of their right to vote.

Meanwhile, the Lopingco-led group also charged Turvill and Fleras with falsification of public documents and perjury for preparing, filing, and signing the 2008 income tax returns of SAPI which should have been the legal responsibility of Lopingco as president and Abaya as treasurer.

The Turvill group, meanwhile, countered that SAPI has only 88 members and the presence of 51 validly constituted a quorum. It alleged that it was Lopingco who violated the Code when she did not conduct the meeting and election as scheduled under the SAPI by-laws.   

The prosecutor’s office concluded that the Turvill group held the election without a valid quorum, based on the membership book presented by Lopingco which had an SEC registration.

It said what Turvill should have done is file a petition with the SEC requesting the latter to direct Turvill to call a meeting by giving the proper notice as required by the Code or by the SAPI by-laws and eventually preside over the meeting. It added that Lopingco’s group cannot be held liable under the law for not calling for the meeting and election on April 15, 2009 as stated in the by-laws, since it is not illegal to rescheduled the holding of the election of officers at the discretion of the members of the board.

It also found probable cause to charge Fleras with perjury since he is not one of the officers authorized under the Internal Revenue Code to sign and file tax returns.

The office meanwhile dismissed the complaint for perjury against Turvill as well as the charges against Lopingco’s group.

For comments, e-mail at [email protected]