R-II says court order covered only some areas

R-II BUILDERS on Saturday denied that Manila Harbour Centre (MHC) had been completely taken over by the government through the Home Guaranty Corp. (HGC) as ordered by a Manila court, saying the ruling only covered “common areas, utilities and facilities.”

In a statement, lawyer Jerome Canlas, chief operating officer of R-II Builders Inc. which is owned by businessman Reghis Romero, said the court order only pertained to the turnover of the management of the 79-hectare port to the Manila Harbour Centre Industrial Park Association Inc. (MHCIPAI), a group of locators at MHC.

“This turnover certainly does not cover control over the entire 79-hectare Manila Harbour Centre,” Canlas said. “It also does not hand over to the HGC control of the said areas, as HGC is not even a party to the case.”

Manila Harbour Centre Development and Management Corp. (MHCDMC) manages the industrial park, whose control is being challenged by the MHCIPAI.

Canlas said the supposed takeover by the HGC was based merely on a “press statement” issued by its president, Manuel Sanchez.

HGC lawyer Eric Quevedo, however, insisted that MHCIPAI led by the HGC had taken effective control of MHC’s roads, gates and other common areas and facilities as ordered by the court.

“I was not referring to the MHC’s port terminal which is being handled by a different locator with which we have different issues,” Quevedo said.

Quevedo also denied R-II Builders’ allegation that the judge’s order was hastily enforced to deprive MHCDMC of time to take other legal moves.

“The court recognized our rights way back in 2010. We just followed the order for the immediate transfer of the common areas and facilities to HGC. You have to take action on it,” he said.

He said HGC had yet to be notified of R-II Builders’ motion for the inhibition of Acting Presiding Judge Lyliha Abella-Aquino, who issued the order, adding that HGC would leave to the judge whether or not to inhibit herself, but would contest any false accusation that the other side might make in pushing for the judge’s inhibition.