TransCo not disobeying court order on guards
September 23, 2006 | 12:00am
The National Transmission Corporation clarified that it has no intention to disobey an order from the regional trial court citing its officials for contempt.
In a press release, TransCo also stressed that it has never barred Kampilan Security and Detective Agency from participating in a bidding it has conducted on June 8 and 9 for security services and equipage but had considered the agency ineligible for its failure to submit the required business tax clearance and SSS clearance of prompt payment.
The state-owned firm is referring to the recent controversy involving a case filed in court by Kampilan, one of the bidders in the public bidding conducted by TransCo.
Early this week, Judge Soliver Peras ruled that TransCo lawyer Perla Centino and security chief Eduardo Cabalan committed indirect contempt against a temporary restraining order, imposing a fine of P10,000.
Kampilan claimed it has been the supplier of security guards to TransCo for the past 14 years but the bidding last June for the P16 million contract technically ousted the agency from the deal for the new contract.
Three agencies namely PEKTOF, Linker and Security and Safety Corporation won the bid and since then had posted their guards at TransCo.
However, Kampilan questioned the bidding process and filed a case for damages and the issuance of the preliminary injunction.
The TRO issued by the court would have allowed the posting of 70 Kampilan guards back at TransCo's premises. But the state-owned firm allegedly refused to obey the order by stopping the return of the Kampilan security guards.
TransCo pointed out that the court order came late in the day "as the act being restrained has already been performed having awarded the contract to the winning bidder."
It stressed that it is very unfortunate that Kampilan questioned the bidding, which was conducted in a very transparent manner.
It added that Kampilan was not the supplier of security guards to TransCo for the past 14 years as the government firm officially started operations only on March 1, 2003 by virtue of Republic Act 9136 or the EPIRA Law. - Wenna A. Berondo
In a press release, TransCo also stressed that it has never barred Kampilan Security and Detective Agency from participating in a bidding it has conducted on June 8 and 9 for security services and equipage but had considered the agency ineligible for its failure to submit the required business tax clearance and SSS clearance of prompt payment.
The state-owned firm is referring to the recent controversy involving a case filed in court by Kampilan, one of the bidders in the public bidding conducted by TransCo.
Early this week, Judge Soliver Peras ruled that TransCo lawyer Perla Centino and security chief Eduardo Cabalan committed indirect contempt against a temporary restraining order, imposing a fine of P10,000.
Kampilan claimed it has been the supplier of security guards to TransCo for the past 14 years but the bidding last June for the P16 million contract technically ousted the agency from the deal for the new contract.
Three agencies namely PEKTOF, Linker and Security and Safety Corporation won the bid and since then had posted their guards at TransCo.
However, Kampilan questioned the bidding process and filed a case for damages and the issuance of the preliminary injunction.
The TRO issued by the court would have allowed the posting of 70 Kampilan guards back at TransCo's premises. But the state-owned firm allegedly refused to obey the order by stopping the return of the Kampilan security guards.
TransCo pointed out that the court order came late in the day "as the act being restrained has already been performed having awarded the contract to the winning bidder."
It stressed that it is very unfortunate that Kampilan questioned the bidding, which was conducted in a very transparent manner.
It added that Kampilan was not the supplier of security guards to TransCo for the past 14 years as the government firm officially started operations only on March 1, 2003 by virtue of Republic Act 9136 or the EPIRA Law. - Wenna A. Berondo
BrandSpace Articles
<
>
- Latest
- Trending
Trending
Latest
Trending
Recommended