Piatco executives face new criminal case

MANILA, Philippines - Officials of the Philippine International Airport Terminals Co. (Piatco) may soon face trial for allegedly monopolizing airport-related services for the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 (NAIA-3).

In a 38-page decision, Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 10 Judge Virgilio Alameda ordered the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) Branch 9 to make its own finding of whether there is probable cause to continue the case against the Piatco officials, who have been charged with monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade (Article 186 of the Revised Penal Code).

Piatco officials Dr. Wilhelm Bender, Bernd Struck, Remy Tigulo, Oscar Lopez Dee, Rolando Esguerra, Jefferson Cheng, Stephan Bauchspiess, Cheng Yong, Hiroshi Kanematsu, Lim Kwee Siah, Henry Go, Tony King, Nilo Pena, Antonio Pacis and Jose Perpetuo Lotilla allegedly agreed to monopolize catering, cargo-handling and other airport-related services within NAIA-3.

Alameda cited that in the contracts the Supreme Court later declared null and void, Piatco wanted the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) not to renew the contracts of firms providing airport-related services at NAIA-1.

Piatco allegedly conspired to lock out NAIA-1 contractors from providing services at NAIA-3, even if these contractors have permits from the government to continue operating beyond the close of NAIA-1.

Piatco also allegedly wanted to allow only Piatco-affiliated companies to provide airport-related services at NAIA-3, even if these firms are not actually engaged in these lines of business.

Private complainant Jose Bernas, a lawyer, filed the charges in 2003 after the Department of Justice (DOJ) overruled the public prosecutor, who found there was enough basis to proceed with the trial.

The prosecutor then filed with the MTC a motion to withdraw the case, which the lower court granted.

In revoking the lower court’s decision, Alameda said the MTC failed to make an “independent evaluation” of the evidence to determine probable cause, in line with Supreme Court rulings that trial courts should arrive at their own assessment of the evidence and not simply rely on the findings of the prosecutor or the DOJ.

“The determination of probable cause after the filing of an information in court is a legal duty vested in the trial court for purposes of issuance of a warrant of arrest,” Alameda said.

He also said Bernas has the legal status to pursue the case because the charges involve “a crime against public interest and the private complainant has invoked his right to intervene in the criminal case or to bring this appeal before this court which in his view is necessary to defend public interest.”