VECO union head faces libel raps

CEBU, Philippines - A libel case has been filed against the president of the Visayan Electric Company (VECO) Employee’s Union before the Regional Trial Court for allegedly making malicious statements against VECO represented by Jaime Jose Aboitiz.

Prosecutor Aurora Peñaflor elevated the case after she found probable cause to charge VECO union presidente Casmero Mahilum.

“There is reasonable ground to believe that libel has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof,” she ruled.

Peñaflor recommended P10,000 for Casmero Mahilum’s temporary liberty.

In filing the case, Peñaflor resolved the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Aboitiz when Prosecutor Simaco Labata who first handled the case, dismissed the complaint for insufficient of evidence.

“After judicious consideration of the complainant movant’s arguments and application of related laws and jurisprudence, the undersigned prosecutor finds cogent reason to recommend for the setting aside and reconsideration of the questioned resolution,” she ruled.

She said the accused with deliberate intent, dishonored VECO during the protest actions on Labor Day.

Peñaflor pointed out that the accused maliciously gave statements and caused these to be published and circulated on May 2 and May 4, 2009 issues of the local newspapers.

Mahilum was quoted to have said that “there is massive violation to the collective bargaining agreement by the VECO management under the leadership of Jimmy Aboitiz.”

Complainant alleged respondent maliciously issued statements which are entirely false and said the purpose was to disgrace VECO.

Aboitiz said the accused referred to VECO as “gross violators of the Labor Code of the Philippines like engaging in labor-only contracting and violating the collective bargaining agreement.”

In the counter-affidavit filed by Mahilum he admitted stating in public that VECO committed unfair labor practice and gross violations of collective bargaining agreement.

In the resolution penned by Prosecutor Labata he dismissed the complaint for the failure of the complainant to present proof that the statements made by Mahilum were not true.

“Complainant should take into consideration that it is not enough for him to allege that respondent issued the statements when in truth and in fact, he very well knew that the same are entirely false and untrue,” Labata ruled. – (FREEMAN)