Instead of engaging in a court battle that it cannot win, the PEA Tollway Corporation (PEATC) should first address the need to have proper representation to settle the conflict over the complex CAVITEX issue.
The operations and management (O&M) contract with concessionaire Cavitex Infrastructure Corp. (CIC) was transferred to PEATC in 2022 but the government firm lacks the capability to handle the several services required to run a tollway.
Thus, the CIC continues to provide the O&M requirements despite the responsibility to transfer these to PEATC in January 2022 after a Transition Committee was constituted which thoroughly discussed the issues surrounding the turnover.
Yet, the action of its parent, the (PRA), indicated that the government lacks the capability to undertake the daily operations and requirements of the tollway such as electronic toll collection, facilities maintenance, incident response, accident clearing, and towing.
Thus, while the O&M has been turned over to PEATC, “PRA keeps requesting CIC to renew the service contracts for the expressway,” according to a CIC official.
The CIC, a subsidiary of the Pangilinan-led Metro Pacific Tollways Corp., holds the concession to operate and maintain CAVITEX through a joint venture agreement with the (PRA) and its unit, PEATC, in December 1994.
PEATC officer-in-charge Dioscoro Esteban Jr. was questioned for usurping authority since he couldn’t present any board resolution that designated him to petition the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus.
He now faces multiple complaints from CIC, submitted to the Ombudsman, for unauthorized filing of the petition.
PEATC was seeking the writ to compel the transfer of control of CAVITEX from CIC to PEATC.
Esteban was slapped with violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act as well as perjury, usurpation of authority and slander charges as defined under Articles 183, 177 and 358 of the Revised Penal Code, respectively.
Esteban, under the pretext of an official position, acted without proper legal authority in (a) filing the petition; (b) purporting to terminate the legal services of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel; (c) engaging private legal counsel to represent PEATC in the petition without the written conformity of both the OGCC and CoA (Commission on Audit), the CIC’s complaint read.
Former Government Corporate Counsel Rogelio Quevedo said the requirement to notify both the OGCC and CoA about hiring a private lawyer had nothing to do with the merits of the case.
“The only issue was whether PEATC can file cases without the approval of the OGCC. CoA will disallow payments to retained private counsel. The courts will dismiss the case (without such authority) but it may be refiled once OGCC deputizes privately retained counsel,” Quevedo explained.
The CIC also charged Esteban with slander over statements he made in recent interviews imputing corruption on the part of the CIC without proof.
A CIC official said the CA petition was not accompanied by any written resolution of the board of directors of PEATC, a basic requirement under the Rules of Court and the Revised Corporation Code, the absence of which renders the petition fatally dismissible.
Rightly so, Esteban cannot be left to speak without authority and mislead the public with his statements.
He is a public officer, although in an interim post, and he should always have a basis for speaking on matters that concern the exercise of power.
PEA said Esteban had the authority to represent PEATC but could not show proof. A board authority is a requirement to make him accountable.