CAVITEX Infrastructure Corp.  (CIC) filed charges against the interim chief of the Public Estates Authority Tollways Corporation (PEATC) before the Ombudsman, citing offenses such as perjury, usurpation, slander, and graft.

The CIC, a unit of Pangilinan-led Metro Pacific Tollways Corp., filed the criminal charges on Wednesday against PEATC Officer-in-Charge Dioscoro E. Esteban, Jr., following his petition for mandamus before the Court of Appeals (CA) and public statements attacking CIC.

In a statement, the CIC said it seeks to make Mr. Esteban accountable for “misrepresenting the PEATC in filing the petition for mandamus against the CIC.”

In a phone call with BusinessWorld, Mr. Esteban dismissed the accusations against him. “How would it be considered graft if you’re [working for the benefit of the] Filipinos and the government?” Mr. Esteban asked rhetorically.

He denied allegations of usurpation of authority, citing a court resolution that said the Board of Directors of the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) permitted him to act the way he did.

PEATC, a state-run firm under the PRA, opposes MPTC’s bid to buy out the government from the joint venture managing the Manila-Cavite Expressway (CAVITEX).

It filed a petition for mandamus before the appellate court to regain its mandate to operate, maintain, and collect tolls from CAVITEX, raising issues on revenue-sharing.

CIC and PRA have a 90-10 revenue-sharing scheme, with the majority share going to CIC.

In PEATC’s petition, it claims that revenue-sharing should have transitioned to 60-40, with majority of the revenues going to the government, when the operations and maintenance agreement expired last 2021.

The CIC questioned Mr. Esteban’s filing of 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.

Lawyer Criselda Funelas, counsel for the CIC in the case before the Ombudsman, said Mr. Esteban’s 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.

Ms. Funelas said that the act of a public officer in claiming to be authorized when he is in fact not authorized, is a crime of usurpation.

“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,” CIC said in a statement.

The same claim, made under oath, is perjurious, added Ms. Funelas. “The statements he made in public against CIC made false accusations of crimes and defects and therefore dishonored the reputation of CIC,” she said.

In a Viber message to BusinessWorld, PEATC Spokesman Ariel E. Inton said: “At the outset this criminal complaint is just a useless attempt on the part of CIC to divert the real issue and that is to recover the operation and collection of fees that rightfully belongs to PEA Toll Corporation.” — Chloe Mari A Hufana

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR