CIC’s action seeks to make Esteban, a public officer, accountable for his act of misrepresenting the PEATC in filing the petition for mandamus against CIC.

Esteban stated under oath that he is the duly authorized representative of PEATC, despite his lack of any board authority.

Further, he has made various public statements besmirching CIC’s reputation.

According to the complaint, PEATC does not have a board of directors but OIC Esteban misrepresented the fact of his authority to file the mandamus case when he swore under oath in his petition that he is legally authorized by PEATC to file the case. He also filed the petition through private lawyers, which is a gross violation of the rules of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (the legitimate lawyers for GOCCs like PEATC), and against the issuances of the Office of the President.

“The statements he made in public against CIC made false accusations of crimes and defects and therefore dishonored the reputation of CIC,” said CIC’s Atty. Criselda Funelas, the complainant in the Ombudsman case.

Atty. Funelas added that the act of a public officer in claiming to be authorized when he is in fact not authorized, is a crime of usurpation. The same claim, made under oath, is perjurious. His acts were in bad faith and showed manifest partiality against CIC and gross inexcusable negligence which are crimes under Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

According to the complaint, PEATC does not have a board of directors but OIC Esteban misrepresented the fact of his authority to file the mandamus case when he swore under oath in his petition that he is legally authorized by PEATC to file the case. He also filed the petition through private lawyers, which is a gross violation of the rules of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (the legitimate lawyers for GOCCs like PEATC), and against the issuances of the Office of the President.

“The statements he made in public against CIC made false accusations of crimes and defects and therefore dishonored the reputation of CIC,” said CIC’s Atty. Criselda Funelas, the complainant in the Ombudsman case.

“As a public officer, OIC Esteban must be fully accountable for his Illegal acts,” Atty. Funelas concluded.

• Any complaints about the Cavitex operations should be addressed by PEATC.
• Contracts for service providers are merely extended by CIC on the request of PRA – which includes among others security services, vehicle towing, maintenance equipment & services, bldg. & facilities maintenance, toll collection system maintenance, and including employee HMO, Insurance, and software subscriptions – all without the approval of the PEATC Board of Directors since there are no designated members in the PEATC Board due to concerns of GOCC Governance Commission.

2. Part of the MCTEP project is the ongoing Cavitex- C-5 Link which covers Parañaque, Pasay & Taguig with a projected capacity of about 50,000 vehicles per day which will decongest Roxas Blvd., MIA, & EDSA.

3. Finally, saying it mildly, PEATC OIC Esteban does not have any authority to file such a case of Mandamus without a PEATC Board approval since there is no PEATC Board to speak off.  The parties to the agreement are PRA, CIC & TRB.  So, it’s a brazen violation with very deliberate intention on his part and the private lawyers to mislead the public and stakeholders.  In short, walang karapatan si OIC Esteban! Our JVA has a dispute resolution mechanism which we offered to PRA/PEATC. It is therefore not true that we have not been responsive to their requests for information but unfortunately, we cannot make the reports that they should properly submit to COA to address the COA’s Findings.  No PEATC report on Revenue and O&M and cash flow since 2007. 
   
4. We believe that, based on the advice of our lawyers, the case should be dismissed outright by the Court of Appeals because of a false and defective verification and certification and something as basic as filing the mandamus without proper authority of the PEATC or PRA Board and without the sign-off of the proper counsel OGCC.

With the project being a joint venture with the PRA, any legal dispute
involving CIC should have rightfully included Philippine Reclamation
Authority as an indispensable party. The petition against CIC was filed
by Mr. Dioscoro Esteban Jr., Officer-in-Charge of PEATC, who lacks
authority of the PRA or of the PEATC Board to file such petition. This
misrepresentation is further evidenced by the absence of the imprimatur
of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) which is the
rightful counsel of a GOCC such as the PEATC.

However, MPTC has consistently demonstrated professionalism and
courtesy by extending invitations for constructive dialogue. We firmly
believe that open communication and collaborative problem-solving are
the most effective means of resolving disputes. Regrettably, these
invitations were disregarded, hindering the progress towards an
amicable resolution.

MPTC reiterates its commitment to uphold the highest standards of
corporate governance and ethical conduct. We remain steadfast in our
dedication to resolve disputes through peaceful and lawful means,
prioritizing the interests of all stakeholders involved. We hope that the
parties involved will address the issue with sobriety, professionalism, and
a genuine willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue towards a
mutually beneficial resolution.