Standoff in fight for control of Equitable
By Honey Madrilejos-Reyes and Joel San Juan
Reporters

THE Supreme Court on Tuesday did not grant a petition by the Romualdez family seeking to stop the board of directors of the Equitable PCI Bank from implementing a Sandiganbayan decision disqualifying them from voting the 7.13-percent sequestered shares of Trans Middle East (Phils.) Equities (TMEE) in the bank.
       Subsequently, they were prevented from voting their shares at the company’s annual stockholders’ meeting Tuesday, which became a long-drawn event owing to legal clashes between lawyers of the major blocs. Until press time the antagonists were in a virtual standoff.
       Equitable PCI Bank chairman Corazon Dela Paz declared almost two hours of recess to allow the shareholders to cast their votes on the nominees for the bank’s new board.
       Among the nominees were Dela Paz herself, Rene Buenaventura, Nazario Cabuquit, Jr., Josefina Tan, Ma. Luz Generoso, Ramon Jabar, Teresita Sy-Coson, Winston Garcia, Reynaldo Palmiery, Exequiel Villacorta, Jr.,Anthony Te, Peter Garrucho, Jesus Tirona, Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, Benjamin Philip Romualdez, Harley Sy, Jose Sio, and Antonio Henson.
       As of press time, the election and canvassing of the votes were not yet completed.
       Meanwhile, Martin Romualdez, a shareholder of EPCI, said their group collectively known as Trans Middle East Equities, did not agree with the decision of the Sandiganbayan barring them from voting their shares.
        “But we are hopeful and confident that our position would be upheld,” he said in an interview. Trans Middle East owns a 7.13-percent stake in EPCI.
       In a two-page en banc resolution dated May 23, the High Tribunal instead ordered respondents Sandiganbayan Fifth Division, Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the board of directors of Equitable PCI Bank to comment within a nonextendible period of five days on the petition filed by the Romualdez-owned TMEE .
       The Court also set the petition for oral argument on June 6, the first day of the resumption of its session.
       The resolution was released only hours after the TMEE filed a petition seeking the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the respondents from implementing the May 22 resolution of the Sandiganbayan.
       The petition also sought to stop the Equitable PCI Bank board from disqualifying the nominees of TMEE from being elected at the stockholders meeting held Tuesday at 3 p.m.
       “Whereas, considering the allegations contained, the issues raised and the arguments adduced in the petition, it is necessary and proper, without giving due course to the petition, to require the respondents to comment thereon within a nonextendible period of five days from notice hereof,” the SC said.
       In a 19-page petition, the Romualdezes said the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in declaring that the TRO issued by the Court in G.R. No. 105808 (PCGG v Sandiganbayan Second Division and TMEE) is still in full force and effect, considering that the said TRO had already been set aside by the antigraft body in a resolution dated April 29, 1998.
       The TMEE said the decision of the Court in G.R. No. 105808 was subject “to the power of the Sandiganbayan to modify or terminate the same in the exercise of its sound discretion in light of such evidence as may subsequently be adduced.”
       Pursuant to that decision of the SC, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution dated April 29, 1998 directing the Equitable PCI Bank chairman of the meeting and the secretary to acknowledge the right of TMEE to vote at the stockholders’ meeting scheduled April 30, 1998.
       Since then until 2005, the TMEE was able to vote its shares at Equitable PCI Bank.
       “Clearly, the said resolution of the Honorable Sandiganbayan dated April 29, 1998 in effect modified or terminated the TRO issued by the Supreme Court in G.R. 105808, which modification or termination is in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the said case,” the TMEE said.
       “Despite the fact that TMEE has been voting the shares of stock registered in its name for the past eight years, from 1998 to 2005, pursuant to the resolution of the Sandiganbayan of April 29, 1998, the said court, without any legal basis, disturbed the status quo by issuing the questioned resolution dated May 22, 2006 declaring that the TRO issued by the Supreme Court to the effect that neither the PCGG nor TMEE is allowed to vote the TMEE shares, still exists in full force and effect,” the petitioner added.
       The Sandiganbayan issued the May 22 resolution in response to the PCGG’s motion to reenforce/reissue the TRO issued by the SC in G.R No. 105808 and to execute the TRO under the decision of the Supreme Court dated January 13, 1995.
       The antigraft court said since its resolution on April 29,1998 has not attained finality due to pending motions for reconsideration, therefore, the Court’s TRO “is still existing and in full force and effect.”
       The TMEE has also filed a separate petition before the Court of Appeals seeking to stop the SM Group from sitting on Equitable PCI Bank’s board.
       In another interview, Teresita Sy-Coson, chairperson of the bank’s executive committee, stressed there was no basis to the claim of the Romualdez camp that the nomination of some officials of the SM Group to the bank’s board presents a conflict of interest.
       “SM Group with its flagship SM Investments Corp., together with certain subsidiaries and affiliates, is a substantial stockholder of EPCIB, holding at least 31 percent of the outstanding capital stock of EPCIB, and, is by law entitled and empowered to have such interest represented in EPCIB’s board,” she explained.