PHC minority owners must protect interests

SMALL VOICE: The lawyer of a businessman who had sued some journalists, including me, over our stories on the looting of the publicly listed Philippine Holdings Corp. said in a letter to my Editor that my comments on PHC were malicious and baseless.

Against his self-serving opinion, I stand by my story.

As concerned part-owners of PHC, we small stockholders cannot stand by idly while some persons who had slipped in through the backdoor using their PCGG key dissipate (others would say “steal”) company assets by the millions.

It is comforting to know, however, that some of the major owners, the original investors of Philcomsat, appreciate what we small stockholders who happen to be in media are doing to protect PHC from systematic looting and mismanagement.

* * *

NIETO CASE: A letter to me from Ms Erlinda I. Bildner, Philcomsat president/CEO and PHC director/treasurer, said: “Thank you for your column (Sept. 11, 2008) that champions the cause of the stockholders of Philcomsat Holdings Corp., which has been mismanaged, plundered, bled dry and looted by previous management.”

“We commend the research that you did into our Corporation and wish to inform you of developments:

“While it is true that in CA G.R. Sp. No. 94038 titled ‘Manuel H. Nieto Jr. vs. Securities and Exchange Commission,’ Mr. Nieto’s signature appears on the verification page of the pleading, he denied filing a petition with the Court of Appeals. He said that he had not seen Atty. Luis Lokin Jr. for a long time and that he does not know Atty. Alma Kristina Alobba.

(FDP: The lawyers filed for Mr. Nieto a petition to stop the holding of a stockholders’ meeting and the election of new PHC directors. But he disowned the petition.)

“With Mr. Nieto subsequently withdrawing the petition through his new counsel, it becomes obvious that the only people interested in securing a favorable ruling are his lawyers Lokin and Alobba.

* * *

ROXAS VIEW: “Note that a similar situation occurred in the case titled ‘Manuel H. Nieto Jr. vs. Court of Appeals,’ docketed as G.R. No. 166984 wherein Atty. Alobba opposed Mr. Nieto’s decision to withdraw. Atty. Alobba’s intention, as found by the Supreme Court, was to keep litigation going even if it went contrary to what her supposed client, Mr. Nieto, wanted.

“The Supreme Court allowed Mr. Nieto to withdraw his petition even after the parties had submitted their respective memoranda and even justified its dismissal of the petition on the basis thereof.

“On the other hand, recently dismissed CA Justice Vicente Q. Roxas held a view contrary to the Supreme Court and refused to allow Mr. Nieto to withdraw his petition simply because it was filed ‘too late.’ Note from the Supreme Court decision that the argument ‘too late’ was the same argument raised by Atty. Alobba in opposing Mr. Nieto’s motion to withdraw.

* * *

LATE FILING?: “Recently dismissed CA Justice Roxas who wrote the controversial Meralco-GSIS decision, was the ponente of the equally controversial Nieto vs. SEC decision. He did not pass judgment on the Memorandum of Agreement among the private stockholders.

“What made his decision controversial was his continuing to render judgment granting a relief that only Lokin, Alobba and their cohorts, were interested in pursuing. The supposed petitioner, Mr. Nieto, had already signified his intention to withdraw so a stockholders’ meeting and election of directors may take place. Yet Justice Roxas denied the withdrawal.

“Justice Roxas explained that the petition was filed 20 days after all comments were filed. (In contrast, the Supreme Court, in the case earlier mentioned, allowed Mr. Nieto to withdraw even if he filed the same 21 days after the memoranda were filed). Equally unreasonable was his ruling that the SEC has no power to compel publicly-listed corporations like PHC to call stockholders’ meetings.

(FDP: As a result of the Roxas decision, PHC shareholders — including the government — have lost some P800 million from bad business decisions and suspicious disbursements.)

* * *

AUDITED: “The illegal disbursement and expenses of previous management represented by Brodett, Lokin, Poblador, Locsin and Alobba were summarized in the joint committee report of the Senate committees on government corporations and public enterprises.

“These were presented by no less than their external auditor, Mr. Virgilio R. Santos, long before the new government nominees led by Mr. Ramon P. Jacinto took over the PHC offices at the Pacific Star in Makati.

“It was on the basis of the supposed ‘representation expenses’ for the Supreme Court and the Sandiganbayan that the two courts initiated their respective investigations against Lokin, etc., for contempt. The Sandiganbayan investigation is ongoing.

“All our accusations against the group of Brodett, Lokin, Alobba, Locsin and Poblador were not invented by us. The supporting documents were inventoried and certified as to their authenticity by SGV & Co. to have been found in PHC’s corporate offices.

* * *

LOKIN CASE: “The suspension of Atty. Lokin is embodied in Administrative Case No. 6554 wherein the Supreme Court ruled in 2006:

“ ‘WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors dated February 27, 2004, is SET ASIDE. Respondent Luis K. Lokin Jr. is found guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of Three (3) Months, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.’

“A Supreme Court committee of three justices conducted its own investigation on an alleged P2,000,000 ‘Cash for an SC Injunction’ by PHC. The committee’s resolution released on July 22, 2008, said there was a strong probability that Lokin was its recipient.”

* * *

ePOSTSCRIPT: Read current and old POSTSCRIPTs at www.manilamail.com. Email feedback to [email protected]