Ongpin lawyer debunks CA freeze order

MANILA, Philippines - The lawyer of businessman Roberto Ongpin yesterday debunked the freeze order issued by the Court of Appeals on the bank accounts of Ongpin and several other individuals involved in the controversial loan extended by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) to the former trade minister.

This developed as Ongpin committed to help the 13 DBP officers who were sacked over the bank’s P660-million loan to him.

Rodolfo Ma. Ponferrada said the freeze order issued last Dec. 6 is “totally without basis and completely unjustified.”

He also said that under the applicable rules of procedure, his client has 20 days within which to have the temporary order lifted.

“We will file the appropriate motion on Monday,” Ponferrada said in a statement yesterday.

Ponferrada said the court was misled by the freeze order application, which was based on “wrong information.”

He said there clearly was no undue injury because the P412.5 million in trading gains that DBP was alleged to have been deprived of had it sold directly to businessman Manuel V.  Pangilinan is purely speculative.

“Then and now, DBP had no deal with Pangilinan. The negotiations were purely between Ongpin and  Pangilinan. And at that time there were no assurances that a sale at the P21 price would be concluded,” Ponferrada said.

The Senate earlier looked into the controversial loan because it allegedly resulted in trading losses for DBP, a government financial institution.

But Ponferrada said the allegations are baseless.

“Even the Ombudsman, in its resolution of Sept. 24, 2012, dropped all other graft charges (including the claim for undue injury). And to date, no criminal case has been filed against Ongpin in any court,” he said.

He said that because there is no financial injury to DBP and to the government stemming from Ongpin’s loan and thus nothing which the government seeks to recover, there is no reason to freeze the bank accounts of Ongpin.

He said the freeze order is just “the latest salvo in a continuing pattern of prosecution” against his client “because of his close association with former first gentleman, Atty. Mike Arroyo.”

Even during the Senate investigations held last year, no evidence was found to recommend criminal prosecution against Ongpin.

Ponferrada said the so-called behest loan charges against his client were incorrect as both these loans have been fully paid with interest well before their maturity.

“It is settled in jurisprudence that for a loan to be behest, it must be non-performing, delinquent or in default. My client is prepared to vigorously oppose this pattern of persecution in all fora,” Ponferrada said.

On the matter involving the 13 DBP officials ordered dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman, Ponferrada said Ongpin would be helping them.

“Additionally, Ongpin told me that he is prepared to assist the 13 DBP officers dismissed recently, by underwriting their legal defense costs. These officers were just innocent bystanders wrongly implicated in this wave of persecution. My client also said that it is completely unjust to deprive them of their livelihood,” said Ponferrada.

In the dismissal order, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales ruled that the loans “were behest in nature, since Ongpin’s firm was under-collateralized and undercapitalized.”