SC dismisses with finality GSIS's qualified theft case vs NPC officials
SC dismisses with finality GSIS's
qualified theft case vs NPC officials
Saying there is neither compelling reason nor any substantial argument to warrant a modification of the Supreme Court's resolution that earlier dismissed the appeal of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), the qualified theft case of the state pension firm against National Press Club officers is now dead.
"Now, the said NPC officials can sleep soundly without worrying a warrant officer may knock on their door," said Berteni "Toto" Cataluña Causing, a former editor of People's Tonight who designed the strategies in all the cases filed by the GSIS against the Press Club and its officials.
The said final say of the Supreme Court was contained in its 13 August 2012 Resolution received on October 29, 2012 by the law firm Renta Pe Causing Sabarre Castro & Associates.
It is recalled that in 2007 the GSIS filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila a qualified theft case against then NPC president Roy Mabasa, vice-president Benny Antiporda, secretary Louie Logarta, treasurer Amor Virata, auditor Rolando Cobarrubias Jr., and directors Jerry Yap, Joey Venancio, Joel Egco, William Depasupil, Dennis Fetalino, Ding Generoso, Sammy Julian, Alvin Feliciano and Rolando Gonzalo.
The GSIS contended that these officials committed qualified theft because they signed the board resolution selling for P10 million the Vicente Manansala mural that had been there at the fourth floor of National Press Club Bldg. since 1956 and that the officers did not ask for consent from the state pension firm to sell the said wall painting.
It argued that the GSIS consent was needed because it was already the owner of the Manansala mural by virtue of the fact that it already owned the NPC building where the said painting was installed.
The ownership name was transferred to the GSIS after the NPC failed to redeem the property in one year after it was sold to the state pension firm by the City of Manila at a public auction on April 15, 1975.
The NPC officials argued that the NPC still owns the building because Letter of Instructions No. 500 signed into law by then President Marcos on January 28, 1977 vested back the ownership over the NPC building and the lot where it stands.
LOI No. 500 gave away the other half of the Press Club's property to the GSIS as payments for all the loans and financial exposures.
The other half where the PLDT building stands was valued by LOI No. 500 more than the amount of the total GSIS financial exposures.
So that even if the title to the NPC land is in the name of the GSIS, the latter merely holds it as a trustee of the Press Club and that the real or beneficiary owner is still the media men's organization.
The NPC officials also argued that even if the GSIS owned the building it does not legally mean that it also owned the painting found there inside, considering that the mural is presumed to be a movable property as proven by the fact that it was removed by the buyer without causing destruction to it or to the building.
This qualified theft case is one of the series of harassment suits launched against NPC officials by then GSIS president and general manager Winston F. Garcia who have been aching to take revenge from bad publicity he got.
The FINAL ORDER of the Supreme Court is attached below: