PRESS CONFERENCE. Public Estates Authority Tollway Corp. (PEATC) Spokesperson Ariel Inton (from left), PEATC President and Officer-in-Charge Steve Esteban, PEATC Legal Manager Sylvester Golez, and PEA Tollway Security Unit president Rodolfo Fernandez during a press conference in Manila on Tuesday (April 30, 2024). The PEATC officials belied the claims of Metro Pacific Tollways Corporation president and CEO Rogelio Singson that the mandamus case filed by the PEATC before the Court of Appeals for the turnover of the CAVITEX back to the government should be dismissed. (PNA photos by Ben Briones)
MANILA – The Public Estates Authority Tollways Corporation (PEATC) on Tuesday belied the claims of the Metro Pacific Tollways Corporation (MPTC) that the mandamus case filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) for the return of the Manila–Cavite Expressway (CAVITEX) back in the hands of the government has no basis and should be dismissed.
In a press conference in Manila, PEATC Legal Manager, lawyer Sylvester Golez said the mandamus case was filed as the PEATC is not part of the joint venture agreement (JVA) and toll operations agreement (TOA) among the MPTC-led CAVITEX Infrastructure Corporation (CIC), the PRA, and the Toll Regulatory Board.
Thus, the PEATC is not part of an arbitration agreement between CIC and the government, he said.
“Since PEATC is not a party or privy to the contract, there is no option or remedy in the ordinary course of law. There is no plain, speedy, adequate remedy so this is the remedy that we need to pursue to restore to the PEATC its mandate to collect. This was also stated in the articles of incorporation naming,” Golez said.
A mandamus case, he said, is a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court used in situations where a corporation or officer unlawfully excludes another from the performance of their right.
“The petitioner may ask the court to issue an order commanding the respondent to perform the act or bring back the right that was encroached or violated,” he said.
He noted that the CIC’s attempts to appear as the aggrieved party have no basis since the government has yet to collect the 60-40 revenue-sharing agreement that was supposed to have been in effect in 2022 after the CIC’s operations and maintenance agreement (OMA) expired on Aug. 25, 2021.
“According to the JVA, once the project’s phase 1 is complete, repayment of loans, and return of equity—when they have earned their money back—it is proper to shift to a revenue sharing of 60-40 [in favor of the government],” he said.
Misinformed claims
PEATC President and Officer-in-Charge Steve Esteban said several of the claims made by MPTC president and CEO Rogelio Singson were misinformed including the claim that the operation and maintenance of CAVITEX have already been turned over to PEATC.
“Hindi totoo na na-turnover na nila lahat. Na-turnover na nila ang trabaho samin pero hindi po ang pananalapi. Ang koleksyon, wala po sa amin (It’s not true that they have turned over everything. They’ve turned over the work but not the financial operation. Toll collection is still not under our control),” Esteban said.
He also clarified that CAVITEX is not a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) or a Build-Operate-Transfer project since the original concession agreement was between a Malaysian company and the Philippine government.
“San ka nakakita ng PPP na gobyerno ang nag-operate (Where have you seen a PPP where the government is the one responsible for operation)?” he said.
He, however, agreed that the operation of CAVITEX has been “lousy” and alleged that it was being done on purpose by the MPTC to buy out the government’s share in CAVITEX.
“Hindi niya sinabi na mula pa 2006, MPTC na ang nago-operate nun. Sila na po ang nago-operate nun. Sinasadya nila na bumagsak ang performance at sinisisi nila sa PEATC para nga ma-buyout nila ang nasabing service agreement (What he hasn’t mentioned is since 2006, the MPTC has been operating CAVITEX. They’re deliberately downgrading its performance and is blaming the PEATC so they can buy out the service agreement),” he said.
PEATC Spokesperson, lawyer Ariel Inton clarified that the workers inside CAVITEX tollbooths are PEATC employees but that the money—in the form of a radio frequency identification (RFID) contactless payment system—is in the hands of CIC.
“Yun ba ang reason kung bakit ayaw niyo iturnover ang collection? Kasi kapag kinolekta yun, it should be turned over to the government (Is that why you won’t turnover the collection? Because once we collect that, it will be turned over to the government),” Inton said.
He rejected Singson’s claim that the conditions that would require CAVITEX to be turned over back to PEATC are not yet met.
“Na hindi pa ibabalik yan kasi meron pa kayong dapat bayaran. Walang ganung kondisyon. Yung mga sinasabi niyang dapat bayaran, hindi naman yun kasama sa phase 1--yun lang yung nasa JVA (That it should be returned because the government is yet to pay. But there is no such condition. What he’s claiming should be paid is not part of phase 1—whatever is in the JVA),” he said.
Earlier, Singson claimed that the mandamus case filed by the PEATC against its subsidiary, CIC, should be dismissed as Esteban has no authority to file such a case without a PEATC Board.
As a government-owned and -controlled corporation (GOCC) by the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), he questioned the absence of PRA as a respondent in the case.
In addition, he said the case should be dismissed outright because of a “false and defective verification and certification” without the proper authority of the PEATC, the PRA Board, and the sign-off of the proper counsel, the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC). (PNA)
