Court of Appeals clears Piatco execs

MANILA, Philippines -  The Court of Appeals (CA) has cleared the officers of the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc. (Piatco) of criminal charges in connection with the alleged monopoly of ground handling, catering, fueling and other airport-related services at the controversial Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Terminal 3.

In an eight-page decision, the fourth division of the appellate court reversed an earlier ruling of a Manila regional trial court (RTC) and ordered the dismissal of the complaint filed by lawyer Jose Bernas against Piatco shareholders for alleged violation of Article 186 (1) of the Revised Penal Code when they conspired to get exclusive right to provide airport-related services in 1999.

Cleared by the CA were Piatco president Henry Go; Oscar Lopez Dee, also of Equitable Banking Corp. Investments Inc.; Rolando Esguerra, of Equitable Banking Corp.; Remy Tigulo, of SB Capital Investment Corp.;

Hiroshi Kanematsu, of Nissho Iwai Corp.; Lim Kwee Siah, of Chuan Hup Inc.; Tony King, Nilo Pena, Antonio Pacis and Jose Perpetuo Lotilla of SyCip Law.

The appeals court reinstated the Feb. 23, 2007 order issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), which granted the motion filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to withdraw the charges against Piatco’s shareholders.

In the ruling penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga, the appeals court held that the RTC erred in granting the appeal of Bernas and ordering the MTC to proceed with the case.

“Verily, it was grave error on the part of the RTC to have allowed the appeal filed by Bernas to prosper without the participation or conformity of the public prosecutor. In the absence of any legal justification, the RTC should have taken cognizance of the appeal filed by Bernas and considered the MTC’s order to be final and executory,” the CA stressed.

Associate Justices Mariflor Punzalan-Castillo and Franchito Diamante concurred in the ruling.

In his complaint, Bernas stressed that while Piatco has the exclusive responsibility to finance, construct, manage and operate NAIA 3, there is nothing in the Amended and Restated Concession Agreement (ARCA) that expressly granted Piatco the sole and exclusive right to provide airport-related services.

In ordering the dismissal of the information, the CA held that the Manila RTC committed “serious error” in taking cognizance of the appeal of Bernas despite the lack of conformity of the pubic prosecutor.

The CA noted that Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court “clearly requires the participation of the public prosecutor in the prosecution of a criminal action unless the private prosecutor had been authorized in writing to prosecute the case that bears the approval of the court.”

It further explained that Bernas’ role in the prosecution of the case is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution and in case of a dismissal by the trial court, an appeal may only be undertaken by the State through the Solicitor General,” the CA explained.

“From all indications, Bernas, on his own has no legal personality to file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal to question the assailed order of the MTC because there is no personal damage to him nor was any of his interests affected,” the CA said.

The Supreme Court nullified in its May 5, 2003 ruling Piatco’s 1997 Concession Agreement, the ARCA and its Supplements covering the NAIA 3 project for being contrary to law and public policy.