Saturday, May 07, 2005

Reviewer 4 - Fiduciary Responsibilities of the Trustee

In Sec. Purisima's press comments on the PPI fiasco, he said that he wanted to make sure that the fiduciary responsibilities were fully carried out. Excerpted below are descriptions of the responsibilities of the trustee taken from the law firm Holland and Knight which gives all of us a better grounding of the issues that Sec. Purisima was referring to.

"...A person acting as a fiduciary must keep the fiduciary assets in accounts separate from his own personal assets and cannot use the fiduciary assets for his personal gain. A person acting as a fiduciary must maintain careful and accurate records of all transactions involving the fiduciary assets and may need to account to a court for all actions taken with respect to those assets. A person acting as a fiduciary is entitled to reasonable compensation for time spent as a fiduciary, but cannot collect excessive sums. Investments of fiduciary assets must be prudent; they should not be speculative. A fiduciary should communicate with those who have a beneficial interest in the fiduciary assets. Failure to fulfill these duties may result in civil or criminal penalties for the fiduciary, and a person should only accept the role of fiduciary after a careful consideration of the serious responsibilities..."

"...A trustee is a fiduciary entrusted with assets to be managed for the benefit of individuals known as beneficiaries, pursuant to authority provided in a contract, known as a trust. It is the duty of the trustee to carry out the terms of the trust.A trustee may be one or more individuals and/or institutions, such as a bank or trust company. A trustee has a range of duties, including investment and management of trust assets, overseeing distributions from the trust to the trust beneficiaries, and general administrative duties.

The trustee must manage and invest the trust assets.This requires careful oversight of the trust property and a balance of the needs of current trust beneficiaries for income from the trust assets with the needs of future trust beneficiaries for a reasonable amount of appreciation in value of the underlying trust assets. In addition, the trustee should have a good understanding of the income and estate tax attributes of the particular trust, for the trust, and for the beneficiaries..."

a) In the case of PPI, the trustor was PPI and the trustees were RCBC and China Bank, with the bulk of the assets under management assigned to RCBC;

b) The various plans offered by PPI (eg. memorial, cremation, pension, trad. educ'l, fixed payout educ'l) were not broken as separate legal vehicles but were offered as differentiated products. This is directly analogous to the various types and flavors of time deposit accounts offered by banks where there is only a single issuer of the products. This deals with the LIABILITY SIDE OF PPI. With this arrangements, the planholder has the same legal rights of creditors to PPI.

c) The monies collected by PPI from the planholders' payments were then entrusted to the abovementioned banks for trust management. Again, separate legal vehicles for housing the investments were not made and the funds were commingled for the benefit of ALL PLANHOLDERS.

d) The beneficiaries, and indeed, the owners of the trust account is not PPI but rather the planholders themselves (as can be surmised from the excerpts above). In other words, the banks are fully responsible and accountable to the planholders and all their actions should have been guided for the welfare and benefit of the planholders.

e) It is incorrect therefore for PPI and YGC to continue offering this laughable fiction that PPI's affairs and Lifetime's affairs are separate and distinct from one another. Every company has a mix of assets and liabilities. PPI was fully responsible and knowledgeable of the risks and rewards of the plans they created and marketed. In turn, the RCBC and Chinabank were entrusted to create a mix of high, medium, and low yielding mix of investments consistent with the risk spectrum of obligations that PPI was incurring.

Readers can now integrate Reviewer 3 with Reviewer 4 to now understand the very deep legal trouble that YGC entities have created for themselves. As we have said, the acuations and decisions of YGC entities are inexplicably self-destructive...especially in light of the fact that it is so easy to ferret out these details.

47 Comments:

At Saturday, May 07, 2005 8:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To add some perspective to this discussion on the trust funds of the various PPI plans and where they were placed:

As of 31 May 2004, RCBC and China Bank were the trustee banks for the trust funds of the education and memorial plans. Also as of 31 May 2004, ING was a trustee bank for trust funds of education plans only. Finally, RCBC alone was the trustee bank for the trust funds of the interment, cremation and pension plans, also as of 31 May 2004.

Of the trust funds for education plans, those for PEPTRAD (traditional plans) were with RCBC and China Bank. Those for PEPSTAR (fixed value plans) were with RCBC and ING.

 
At Saturday, May 07, 2005 9:53:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, PPI's claims are correct that trust fund for traditional plan and fixed value plands are different.
By asking PPI to join the 2 trust funds together, we will really get their of fixed value planholders .

 
At Saturday, May 07, 2005 9:54:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

OOPS. repost

So, PPI's claims are correct that trust fund for traditional plan and fixed value plands are different.
By asking PPI to join the 2 trust funds together, we will really get the ire of fixed value planholders .

 
At Saturday, May 07, 2005 10:33:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The SEC would ensure that the Trust funds for each plan are indeed separate - no issue or surprises there.

However from a "simple" folk point of view - why go thru this whole exercise of transferring Pepstar to another company? Why take out the YGC endorsement from PPI? Why did they not stop the secondary transfers knowing fully well that deregulation had made traditional plans unviable?

Irresponsible and inept management period.

 
At Saturday, May 07, 2005 11:36:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Irresponsible? Inept?

Nope! Sobrang matalino nga e!

Nauto nga tayo di ba?

By a mere promise and assurance that "NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE TUITION FEE WILL COST IN THE FUTURE, YOUR CHILDRENS FULTURE IS ASSURED", or something to that effect di ba?

"IT FULLY BACKED BY THE YUCHENGCO GROUP OF COMPANIES" di ba?

Or "YUCHENGKO NAMAN YAN" as their agents always claims, di ba?

The time for yakity-yak is done! FIGHT!

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 12:45:00 AM, Anonymous CORPORATE GUY said...

From a corporate standpoint, a company cannot go into partial rehabilitation. If a company goes into rehabilitation,its whole assets are frozen.
This means, for it to rehabilitate the traditional plans it has to spin it off or else even the fixed term planholders, even with a sufficient trust fund, as well as its other clients in other products will be affected.

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 12:59:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From http://www.usfca.edu/online/about_USF/admin_fac.html
University Adminstration and Faculty

Please take note of the last name on the list:

Board of Trustees

Chairman of the Board

Dr. Charles M. Geschke

Vice Chair

Ms. Maureen A. Clark

President

Rev. Stephen A. Privett, S.J., Ph.D.

Members

Mr. Richard L. Bechelli

Rev. Paul J. Bernadicou, S.J.

Mr. Joseph J. Bonocore

Rev. Philip L. Boroughs, S.J.

Rev. J. Dean Brackley, S.J., Ph.D.

Ms. Sheila P. Burke

Dr. Francis J. Butler

Mr. Claudio M. Chiuchiarelli

Mr. Alfred S. Chuang

Ms. Jeanne M. Cunicelli

Mr. Ricky J. Curotto

Dr. Dixon R. Doll

Hon. Judith R. Epstein

Rev. John P. Fitzgibbons, S.J., Ph.D.

Rev. Jon D. Fuller, S.J., M.D.

Dr. Suzanne M. Giraudo

Hon. Martin J. Jenkins

Mr. Wayne E. Jerves

Mr. Peter K. Maier

Mr. Thomas E. Malloy

Ms. Antoinette M. Malveaux

Ms. Susan G. Marineau

Dr. Joseph E. Marshall, Jr.

Mr. Putra Masagung

Rev. John P. McGarry, S.J.

Ms. Joan M. McGrath

Mr. Patrick McNicholas

Mr. John F. Nicolai

Rev. John J. O'Callaghan, S.J.

Dr. Lawrence R. O'Connor

Rev. Patrick B. O'Leary, Ph.D.

Rev. Mark Ravizza, S.J., Ph.D.

Mr. Steven M. Read

Rev. Thomas J. Scirghi, S.J.

Rev. Michael J. Sheeran, S.J., Ph.D.

Mr. Dominic A. Tarantino

Rev. John R. Treacy, S.J.

Dr. Herbert E. von Rusten, D.D.S.

Mr. Steven P. Westly

Ms. Teresa J. Win

Dr. Alfonso T. Yuchengco

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 2:29:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For Winnie Bonifacio:

I thought about this a lot and my conscience says that I have to send it to you.
I looked for your e-mail but could not find it, so I had no choice but to post it here. I am not sure you if you would believe me but I received this from my very credible YGC insider.

Please for the benefit of the coalition, take him out.

Please delete this immediately !!! I posted this as late in the evening as possible to minimize other people from reading this.

I even tried warning pep friday. I posted for the first time in their web and posted his links to Marcos, para at least coalition can check him out. As expected, paranoid galore. My good intentions were interpreted pa as a bad intention.

It is in your hands...

------------------
XXXXXX,

Sorry! Been really busy. Working 90 hours a week.

Meeting tomorrow is only for planholders of selected YGC companies. Cocktales got a wind of it somehow and thought it was for general consumption.

Have some juicy info for you,as usual confidential:

Do you know that their spokesman Philip Piccio has been constantly trying to set-up a one-on-one meeting with Sonny Garcia? Sonny of course refuses. Sonny keeps on insisting that he would only meet if Winnie and Philip are together, but persistent talaga. Philip wants a meeting without Winnie there. Of course, PPI will never agree to this. Mukhang si Philip has his own motives. You know what I mean($$$)?

Tuesday, good ako.

XXXXX

--- xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> XXXXX,
> How's your temporary assignment in PPI? Busy pa rin ba?
> Anything juicy?
> How come we did not get any advisory on planholder's meeting tomorrow? Gimmick lang ba
> iyan?
>
> XXXXXX
> BTW, tuloy and badminton this tuesday. Try to go!


Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 4:47:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to all concerned parents who are supporting/helping the coalition...ituloy nyo po ang laban para sa kapakanan ng mga anak natin. saludo po kami sa inyo!!!


am posting here the latest article from INQ7.net so that people may know....

Pacific plan holders walk out of forum

Posted 00:43am (Mla time) May 08, 2005
By Alcuin Papa
Inquirer News Service

Editor's Note: Published on page A1 of the May 8, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

HOLDERS of educational plans from the troubled Pacific Plans Inc. walked out of a forum organized by the company at the Philippine International Convention Center yesterday, frustrated at the inability of PPI officials to address the one over-riding question: Would their children be able to enroll this school year?
Things became heated when several plan holders stood up to demand an open forum in the midst of a slide presentation explaining why the PPI had to seek court assistance to suspend payments.
PPI, a pre-need company belonging to the Yuchengco Group of Companies, went to court in early April with a plea for relief from paying an estimated P350 million worth of maturing plans.
It said the deregulation of tuition fees had resulted in a liquidity problem for the firm and sought court approval for a rehabilitation plan.
The plan holders said they wanted an open forum to hear the explanations of officials on why the company would be unable to pay the tuition of their children this year.
"I thought this was supposed to be an open forum. We want to talk to officials of the company," said Simeon Marfori II, who had flown all the way from Davao.
Marfori, vice president of the Davao City Chamber of Industry, said he was handed a program of yesterday's event and it did not provide for an open forum.
PPI officials said they would be distributing a questionnaire and survey sheet for the plan holders to note down their complaints.
"What I am hearing is propaganda and a lot of b.s. We want straight answers. They should open this for questions because we are willing to listen and maybe even compromise," Marfori told reporters.
Other plan holders began demanding with raised voices what the company intended to do about their children's tuition payments.
"I have heard these before. What I'd like to hear is what the company will do for plan holders like me," said Jon Santamaria, who has seven plans for his four kids.
"What we want is answers to our questions like when and how we are going to be paid. Our needs are immediate and we need answers," said Catalina Cruz, who has 10 PPI plans.
Philip Piccio, spokesperson for the Parents Enabling Parents Coalition (PEP Coalition), also stood up and demanded an open forum. The PEP Coalition is a lobby group that the PPI plan holders have organized.
A PPI official, Roy Padiernos, took the microphone and engaged Piccio in a virtual shouting match. Padiernos asked Piccio "not to shout."
Piccio retorted: "You have the mike, I don't. I have to shout so you can hear me."
It was at this point that Padiernos said the plan holders were not invited to the forum. With that, the plan holders stood up and walked out.
PPI spokesperson Jeanette Tecson said the plan holders were not invited to the forum.
"This event was supposedly for Pacific Plan employees and other employees of the Yuchengco Group of Companies. Unfortunately, some people disrupted the proceedings," she said, adding that the company would be scheduling another forum for the plan holders.
Piccio pointed to a sign at the PICC entrance that read: "Welcome Pacific Plan holders."
"I saw the sign and I am a plan holder, so I went in," he said.
Piccio was also seen chatting amiably with Padiernos and Tecson before the forum began.
Inside the PICC, there was also a banner saying the event was a "Plan Holders Forum."
About 200 people attended the forum, divided almost equally between plan holders and agents and employees of PPI.
"I am a plan holder and creditor of the company. And I have every right to ask questions. We need answers. All I want to know is when and how they will pay us," Piccio said.
Aside from the thousands of plan holders left "feeling cheated" by PPI's inability to meet tuition obligations this year and for some years to come, the PPI rehabilitation plan became more controversial when it was found that before it applied for relief, the company had put up a subsidiary, Lifetime Plans Inc., and transferred most of the PPI's assets to it.

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 7:14:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the person who keeps criticizing Philip

Can you just transfer to the enlightenment website and leave us alone.

Keep up the good work Philip.

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 8:04:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, it looks like the only real bankruptcy of PPI is in its ability to field real issues, so now they have to manufacture issues against people... divide and conquer, right?

Atty. Philip, we are behind you! Don't worry about these posts, they are to be expected. In fact, if they can manufacture problems for Pacific Plans in order to shut it down, THEY WILL MANUFACTURE PROBLEMS AGAINST YOU TO SHUT US DOWN. WE SHALL NOT MAKE THAT HAPPEN!

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 8:16:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excuse me, before these issues about the Trust Funds get read out of context, please note that IT IS NOT THE TRUST FUND THAT OWES THE LIABILITY TO THE PLANHOLDERS! IT IS PACIFIC PLANS, AND IN THE FACE OF FRAUD, THE YUCHENGCO GROUP!

The issues raised in this post merely refer to asset management and fiduciary duties, to check if self-dealing contributed to the problems of Pacific Plans. In the end, before the YGC expropriated the assets of Lifetime Plans in order for kill Pacific Plans, ALL OF THESE TRUST FUNDS ASSETS FORM A UNITY AGAINST WHICH TO COMPARE AGAINST THE ACTUARIAL RESERVE LIABILITIES! It is Pacific Plans which owned all these liabilities and trust funds, so all of this talk about separate trust funds for separate liabilities is but part of the legal and propaganda maneuverings of those who continue to deceive us in order to run away from their obligations to us.

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 8:24:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To all concerned,

This was what happened in yesterday's PPI meeting at the PICC. I was there. Seems like Yuchengco's PR Plan backfired!

Pacific plan holders walk out of forum

Posted 00:43am (Mla time) May 08, 2005
By Alcuin Papa
Inquirer News Service

Editor's Note: Published on page A1 of the May 8, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

HOLDERS of educational plans from the troubled Pacific Plans Inc. walked out of a forum organized by the company at the Philippine International Convention Center yesterday, frustrated at the inability of PPI officials to address the one over-riding question: Would their children be able to enroll this school year?

Things became heated when several plan holders stood up to demand an open forum in the midst of a slide presentation explaining why the PPI had to seek court assistance to suspend payments.

PPI, a pre-need company belonging to the Yuchengco Group of Companies, went to court in early April with a plea for relief from paying an estimated P350 million worth of maturing plans.

It said the deregulation of tuition fees had resulted in a liquidity problem for the firm and sought court approval for a rehabilitation plan.

The plan holders said they wanted an open forum to hear the explanations of officials on why the company would be unable to pay the tuition
of their children this year.

"I thought this was supposed to be an open forum. We want to talk to officials of the company," said Simeon Marfori II, who had flown all the way from Davao.

Marfori, vice president of the Davao City Chamber of Industry, said he was handed a program of yesterday's event and it did not provide for an open forum.

PPI officials said they would be distributing a questionnaire and survey sheet for the plan holders to note down their complaints.

"What I am hearing is propaganda and a lot of b.s. We want straight answers. They should open this for questions because we are willing to listen and maybe even compromise," Marfori told reporters.

Other plan holders began demanding with raised voices what the company intended to do about their children's tuition payments.

"I have heard these before. What I'd like to hear is what the company will do for plan holders like me," said Jon Santamaria, who has seven plans for his four kids.

"What we want is answers to our questions like when and how we are going to be paid. Our needs are immediate and we need answers," said Catalina Cruz, who has 10 PPI plans.

Philip Piccio, spokesperson for the Parents Enabling Parents Coalition (PEP Coalition), also stood up and demanded an open forum. The PEP Coalition is a lobby group that the PPI plan holders have organized.

A PPI official, Roy Padiernos, took the microphone and engaged Piccio in a virtual shouting match. Padiernos asked Piccio "not to shout."

Piccio retorted: "You have the mike, I don't. I have to shout so you can hear me."

It was at this point that Padiernos said the plan holders were not invited to the forum. With that, the plan holders stood up and walked out.

PPI spokesperson Jeanette Tecson said the plan holders were not invited to the forum.

"This event was supposedly for Pacific Plan employees and other employees of the Yuchengco Group of Companies. Unfortunately, some people disrupted the proceedings," she said, adding that the company would be scheduling another forum for the plan holders.

Piccio pointed to a sign at the PICC entrance that read: "Welcome Pacific Plan holders."

"I saw the sign and I am a plan holder, so I went in," he said.

Piccio was also seen chatting amiably with Padiernos and Tecson before the forum began.

Inside the PICC, there was also a banner saying the event was a "Plan Holders Forum."

About 200 people attended the forum, divided almost equally between plan holders and agents and employees of PPI.

"I am a plan holder and creditor of the company. And I have every right to ask questions. We need answers. All I want to know is when and how they will pay us," Piccio said.

Aside from the thousands of plan holders left "feeling cheated" by PPI's inability to meet tuition obligations this year and for some years to come, the PPI rehabilitation plan became more controversial when it was found that before it applied for relief, the company had put up a subsidiary, Lifetime Plans Inc., and transferred most of the PPI's assets to it.

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 10:44:00 AM, Anonymous Winnie Bonifacio said...

Please be informed that Sonny Garcia initiated the meeting with Philip during the Dong Puno show. The officers asked Philip to respond to this but unfortunately all his attempts were in vain.

To suggest that Philip is doing something underhand is malicious and wrong.

The Coalition stands behind Philip
all the way!!! As they say, you can't put a good man down.

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 11:34:00 AM, Anonymous SX said...

To Winnie Bonifacio.

I won't be surprised if Sonny Garcia tried to get Philip to a one-on-one. After all, that's his "specialization". Maneuvering people and facts is his expertise. Just like what he did to MP of PLDT. Si MP pa yon ha? So please advise everybody in the Core groups to be very, very careful and alert when dealing with this SG. Thanks for reading my comment.

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 11:54:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To: ALL PLANHOLDERS

We wll be having our 2nd general assembly on Saturday, May 14 2005 8am at St. Pauls-Pasig Gym.

Included in the AGENDA is the signature campaign for PGMA and the Pre-Need Industry. Updates regarding our case will be given.

Please DO COME and STAND AS ONE!!!

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 2:49:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with the one who posted earlier that PPI is primarily responsible for the trust funds. The trustee banks, however, cannot be without fault if they, too, were remiss in their duties to the true owners and beneficiaries of the trust funds. One of those duties was to ensure that the trust funds earn the most income they can under prevailing investment conditions. There are indications that the trustee banks of PPI's trust funds did not do enough to maximize those returns. Does the term "sweetheart deal" mean anything to you?

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 4:01:00 PM, Anonymous Gerry said...

We have now established that there was FRAUD by PPI and YGC. What do we do now? IF we file a suit won't it take YEARS and millions of pesos? Why don't we fight back by boycotting YGC? Our only chance now is for SEC to declare the rehab plan illegal. What if they wont? We need a course of action. Its useless to be going to each detail about the sins of PPI. That has been established already. The next question is What do we do now? We may have the LAW in our favor with arguments to our favor, but knowing how justice works in this country, do you think we stand a chance of getting a legal decision right away? Or do we like the Pepsi 349 victims wait and wait in vain? Even the Supreme Court decision awarding money to 3 349 victims can still be appealed. It may take years again for a final decision reaffirming the initial one. We have to plan something against YGC.

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 5:01:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was able to watch TV Patrol last night and was at first so happy that the Planholders Walkout at PICC was the TOP STORY. I thought that AT LAST we were given the attention we deserve. But oops the next news item was about the so-called complaints on the unstoppable tuition increases. What a coincidence. Just as I thought that we scored over PPI this time, the following news item was to some sort of emphasize or even justify PPI's rehab petition due to tuition increase. And what's worse was this speech of a certain Raymond Palatino, vice-chairman of ANAKBAYAN. He mentioned that "DI NILA (referring to PPI?) NA-PROJECT ANG TALAGANG SHARP INCREASE NG TUITION SAMANTALANG MABABA YUNG BINABAYAD NG MGA PLANHOLDERS". Got confused there. The news was about the complaints of parents on high tuition fees and then this Palatino trying to defend the pre-need company (must be PPI!). I don't think that his speech has any relevance to the news item. And shouldn't ANAKBAYAN be more sympathetic to the Planholders than to these companies who cheat the people. Mr. Palatino, please know the facts first even before speaking in front of the media. Buti pa nga ikaw, may media exposure agad. Is it because what you say is PRO-PPI?

The way I see it, parang pinilit isingit itong speech ni Palatino to neutralize the effect of the walkout on PPI. ABS-CBN, please explain!

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 6:52:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To everybody and to "law is my hobby"

I am not a lawyer, too. But this fraud of PPI forced me to read legal books to "count the ways" the Yuchengco's defrauded me of college education of our children:

Let me direct you to pages 368 to 370 0f Bar Review Materials in Commercial Law by Miravite: (material type verbatim)

1) Doctrine of Piercing the Veil of Corporate Fiction.

When Applied"

1) When used as a cloak to cover fraud, illegality or resulting in injustice (Soriano vs CA 174 SCRA 195) when necessary to achieve equity or to protect creditors/

2) When two factories are made to appear as one and used as a device to defeat the ends of law, or as a shield to confuse legitimate issues (Reynolds vs. CA, 169 SCRA 220),

3) When the parent corporation assumes complete control of its subsidiary's business (Phil. Veterans Integrated Investment vs. CA 181 SCRA 178).

The mere fact that the businerss of two or more corporations are interrelated is not a justification for disregarding the separation personalities, absent a sufficient showing that the corporate entity was purposely used as shield to defraud creditors and third persons of their rightrs. (Umali et al vs. CA et al, G.R. 895 Sept 13, 1990)

Bar Question: (B) What is the doctrine of "piercing the veil of corporate entity" and in what cases did the Supreme Court apply the said docrine (1985 Bar, 10 B)

Answer: (b) The doctrine of pierceing the veil of corporate fiction allows the state to direct for certain justifiable reasons, the fiction of a juridical personalaity for the corporation, separate and distinct from the persons compising it.

The Supreme Court aplies this doctrine in the following cases and instances:

(1) when the corporation was used as an alter ego or business conduit for the sole benefit of the stockholders

(2) When one corporation is a mere subsidiary, instrumentality or department of another corporation

(3) When the corporation is used as a shield to an end subversive to justice

(4) when the corporation is used to perpetuate fraud or confuse legitimate issues

(5) when the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime.

Bar Question: What facts and circumstances must be proved in order that the stockholders may be held liable for the obligations contracted by the corporation (1962 BAR VIIa)

Answer: While a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from the stockholders composing ig, this veil of corporate fiction may be disregarded, and the stockholffer and the corporation considered as one person, in the following instances:

1, when the stockholders created a corporation to evade taxes, violate laws, commit fraud, evade just obligations, and

2. when the corporation is owned by the stockholders and his dummies and/or the immediate members of his family.

In page 368 of the same book, you will read:

where a second corporation was created as a means to prevent a first corporation from paying obligations to employees, the view of corporate fiction must be pierced (NAFLU vs. OPLE 143 SCRA 124)

In page 369: c) Consequences if veil is pierced. The consequences where the veil is pierced are
(1) if only one corporation is involveld, to disregard its existence as an association of persons, and
(2) if two corporations participate, to merge them, and consider them only as one entity (Remo vs. IAC 172 SCRA 405).

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 7:47:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This song is heartily dedicated to the Yuchengco Group of Companies.


Halik ni Hudas
Artist: Wolfgang

Mga asong nanloloko
nagpapanggap na tao
mga pangakong matamis
puro langaw at ipis

sa bawa't tabi at sulok
pagkatao'y nabubulok
nakalubog na sa kabaong
lalo pang binabaon

tao sa pangil ng buwaya
kapangyarihan ng halik ni hudas

ubos na ang mga bayani
mga duwag ang nalalabi
kunwari'y matatapang
ihahango sa kahirapan

kukunin niya lahat sa iyo
isip at kaluluwa
pagkatao mo'y papasukin
tapos dudurugin

tao sa pangil ng buwaya
kapangyarihan ng halik ni hudas

magtiwala ka sa akin
kaligtasan mo ako
dito ka susunugin
sa aking paraiso

sumunod sa mga utos
mga lason na pangako
ang kanyang mga kamay
mga batong pumapatay

kaibigang nakaitim
dadalhin ka sa dilim
magpailalim sa kanya
nakatali ng kadena

tao sa pangil ng buwaya
kapangyarihan ng halik ni hudas

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 7:50:00 PM, Anonymous rocker said...

This song is heartily dedicated to the Yuchengco Group of Companies...

BOYCOTT THE YUCHENGCO GROUP, HUDAS NOT PAY!

===================
Halik ni Hudas
Artist: Wolfgang

Mga asong nanloloko
nagpapanggap na tao
mga pangakong matamis
puro langaw at ipis

sa bawa't tabi at sulok
pagkatao'y nabubulok
nakalubog na sa kabaong
lalo pang binabaon

tao sa pangil ng buwaya
kapangyarihan ng halik ni hudas

ubos na ang mga bayani
mga duwag ang nalalabi
kunwari'y matatapang
ihahango sa kahirapan

kukunin niya lahat sa iyo
isip at kaluluwa
pagkatao mo'y papasukin
tapos dudurugin

tao sa pangil ng buwaya
kapangyarihan ng halik ni hudas

magtiwala ka sa akin
kaligtasan mo ako
dito ka susunugin
sa aking paraiso

sumunod sa mga utos
mga lason na pangako
ang kanyang mga kamay
mga batong pumapatay

kaibigang nakaitim
dadalhin ka sa dilim
magpailalim sa kanya
nakatali ng kadena

tao sa pangil ng buwaya
kapangyarihan ng halik ni hudas

 
At Monday, May 09, 2005 2:35:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please write to the President of the University of San Francisco requesting them not to push through with their giving an Honorary Degree to the "old man". Considering that the "old man" is a member of the Board of Trustees of that university, doesn't it look awkward for them to give him such recongnition. And since he's involved with this big controversy and fiasco in the country, the more it doesn't seem appropriate.

The email id of the University's President is -

president@usfca.edu

 
At Monday, May 09, 2005 4:15:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

senator pangilinan maraming salamat po sa inyong tulong, sana marami pang katulad nyo.

lubos na gumagalang,
ofw/saudi arabia

so the people may know....

posted from abs-cbnnews.com 09may05

Senator takes on preneed firms

The Senate majority leader, Francis Pangilinan, on Sunday proposed stiffer penalties for preneed firms in the light of the Pacific Plans Inc. (PPI) halfhearted assurance to pay for the tuition fees of its 16,000 plan holders who will be using their plans for this school year.

"Someone has to be held accountable, as public confidence and interests need to be protected as the preneed industry is dying quickly due to worsening liquidity and solvency problems," Pangilinan said.

He said his help was sought by the coalition of parents and students who have been affected by PPI’s difficulty in covering education plans maturing this school year.

On Saturday a forum for PPI plan holders at the Philippine International Convention Center ended with angry participants storming out, accusing the officials of the beleaguered preneed company of trying to deceive them.

PPI, who has filed for rehabilitation with the Makati City Regional Trial Court, has promised to refund plan holders all their premium payments plus 7-percent interest.

Pangilinan has filed a resolution that will promote public confidence and interest in the preneed industry "that is quickly eroding due to cases of worsening liquidity and solvency."

He said the volatility in the preneed industry should not be taken out on the plan holders, since it stems from bad corporate governance and erroneous actual estimates.

In 1978 there were 91 preneed companies, Pangilinan noted. By 2002 half of the firms have ceased operations.

"PPI cannot continue to blame the country’s tuition fee deregulation law for their financial travails. In 1990, when partial tuition fee was mandated, they should have been prudent enough to discontinue the sale of traditional open-ended educational plans, if they knew they could not afford to pay their obligations to plan holders," Pangilinan said.

He said PPI took two years to act on its problems despite its sizable market share from 1986 to 1992.

"There was enough time for their board and management to react to the signs of the times. They should have also been able to forewarn the plan holders. As far as I’ve heard, plan holders were still receiving communication from PPI this February 2005 that it was business as usual and that everything was fine. But apparently that was not true," Pangilinan said.

He pointed out that CAP’s loss of liquidity was due to a bleeding portfolio of investments and Pacific Plans should explain where they invested the plan holders’ money.

Pangilinan said Congress is working on a proposed Pre-Need Plan Code of the Philippines.

"This should be able to guarantee plan holders in the future that they get their investment returns or else preneed firms must pay fines or face the courts. Bad corporate governance and erroneous actuarial estimates cannot be the standard scapegoat," Pangilinan said.

He added: "In the absence of a Pre-Need Plan Code, it is the legal and moral obligation of Pacific Plans to be answerable to the more than 30,000 plan holders that have yet to be paid. I hope that the Yuchengco Family and Pacific Plans board and management will consider sitting down with the coalition to explain their side." Patricia Esteves

 
At Monday, May 09, 2005 9:23:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In response to:
"
Please write to the President of the University of San Francisco requesting them not to push through with their giving an Honorary Degree to the "old man". Considering that the "old man" is a member of the Board of Trustees of that university, doesn't it look awkward for them to give him such recongnition. And since he's involved with this big controversy and fiasco in the country, the more it doesn't seem appropriate.

The email id of the University's President is -

president@usfca.edu"

Hey, people start thinking!!!

libel per se
n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about
another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to
perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like
syphilis) or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so
obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment
for "general damages," and not just specific losses.

I think this is exactly what YGC wants us to do. First, we will be writing a US based school where lawsuits are acted sooner. Second, we will be writing a school wherein they will have access to our letters. Third, there has not been a case filed against YGC for fraud or dishnonesty. So writing a letter stating AY's dishonesty is automatically libel! YGC will sue us individually, which is worse!!

The one who started this all must be a plant!!!!

 
At Monday, May 09, 2005 10:34:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you, ofw/saudi arabia, for posting the article about Senator Panigilinan's actions and view regarding the PPI fiasco.

Senator Pangilinan, mabuhay ka, at maraming salamat po!!

 
At Monday, May 09, 2005 12:43:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can the planholders just agree on this? Those who want rehab can get their money and those who want to file a lawsuit, just don't get your money and sue.

At least in this case, we dont prejudice planholders who want the rehab and the coalition can do their own thing.

Is this possible?

 
At Monday, May 09, 2005 3:38:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When we write to the president of usf, we don't have to accuse AY of dishonesty. We can ask that USF defer giving AY the Phd and make more thorough investigations or background check since there is a growing controversy surrounding his business empire and their business practices here in the Phils. To protect their university's good name, they should be more circumspect in giving out PhDs. US corporations do not need proof of wrongdoing to take a cautious stand. Any whiff of scandal will force them to step back. Notice how they stop ads, deals, etc. of celebrities like Michael Jackson even if he's still innocent till proven guilty.

Don't assassinate AY's character. Just advise USF of what's going on here and let them decide if they want to proceed.

 
At Monday, May 09, 2005 3:46:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another option would be to attach newspaper articles or links in inq7.net. Since these were already printed and probably screened by paper lawyers, the chance of libel would be slimmer.

 
At Monday, May 09, 2005 5:01:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yup, that's what I did. I copy/pasted some of the articles in the Inquirer.

 
At Monday, May 09, 2005 5:09:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with the previous poster saying that the letter to USF is more of a request for them to defer the award and try to investigate the controversy that Mr. Yuchengco is into right now. No need for name-calling. Articles from newspapers could be sent and any factual information like the setting up of Lifetime Plans and its subsequent sale to different parties, filing of the rehab plan and until the issuance of the Stay Order.

We should be sending this input to the USF and these factual data will not be libelous.

 
At Monday, May 09, 2005 5:22:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the peson who wrote...

"So writing a letter stating AY's dishonesty is automatically libel! YGC will sue us individually, which is worse!!

The one who started this all must be a plant!!!!"

Comment:

Aren't you the plant???

Why do you say that the one who started this all must be a plant? There should be nothing libelous in writing to USF and exposing the controversy involving the Yuchengcos. It's up to them to validate the information they receive.

 
At Monday, May 09, 2005 6:18:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In response to:

"Why do you say that the one who started this all must be a plant? There should be nothing libelous in writing to USF and exposing the controversy involving the Yuchengcos. It's up to them to validate the information they receive."

If you are not a plant, you must be really stupid.

Haven't you heard the statement "innocent until proven guilty"? In this case, there has not been a case filed against AY. The minute he is proven guilty, you have every right to inform them.

In fact, the whole blog is libelous, that is why everyone is hiding under "anonymous" or a monicker.

In fact ,read about libel in blogs:

"As a blog publisher, every blogger becomes liable under international libel laws for statements made on a blog, because it is public publication, so to speak, designed to be read by an audience at large. Pursuing a blogger so far seems pretty rare. Unfortunately for personal publishing, bloggers carry the legal responsibilities of large publishers but rarely have the same legal resources. Before notifying press etc about this I would very much advise consulting with a lawyer as to whether publishing a retraction would curtail their ability to go ahead and sue for libel anyway. If you could be pursued, there's no point in stinging them into actually suing as they would almost certainly win and the California and Irish courts are prone to awarding very large damages plus costs."

Accusing someone in the US of a dishonesty that is not even in courts is really get your ass kicked.

Go ahead, let them your butt.

 
At Monday, May 09, 2005 7:49:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Response to:

"Can the planholders just agree on this? Those who want rehab can get their money and those who want to file a lawsuit, just don't get your money and sue."

I was at the PICC meeting last Saturday. Judging from how the PPI people handled the meeting and from their responses and actuations, I think that they have all been brainwashed. They honestly believe that what their management did was correct. There is a saying that when you keep on repeating a lie, you will believe that it is the "truth".

There is really no point in discussing with them. With their "homecourt" advantage, we have no choice but to give our best shot to stop their rehab plan. We already have evidences and good arguments to use against them. If we give in, we are allowing an injustice to happen. With must set a good example to our children.

 
At Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:13:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I bought the PEPTRAD for my children in 1992 inspite of the fact that i knew I do not have the extra money to pay for premiums. Buying it was a hard decision, for it would mean tightening of the already very tightened belt...it meant skimping on snacks, delaying purchase of shoes, no new dresses for me and my children, walk to EDSA instead of taking the jeep from Ayala, or half order ng ulam sa tanghalian. Hindi na baleng magtiis para lang makasiguro sa pag aaral ang aming mga anak.

One of the primary considerings why i bought from Pacific is that it is a member of the YuchengcoGC. I was proud of this investment, and time and again tell/boast to our children that they/we do not have to worry of their college education. because Pacific Plans will pay for their tuition fees no matter what the costs... Their educ plans were fully paid in 1997, and this made it easier to accept early retirement from work.

Finally, the waiting is over. My son is going to college this June. PPI is backing out on their Obligation, and all our teachings to our children on savings and nvestments now meaningless.

I have a valid contract with PPI. I paid their premiums, and they have to pay their Obligation.

Accepting the rehab plan is like telling your children "pacensya ka na, kasi isip bata ang aming kausap" or "di bale, wag ka na lang mag aral kasi hindi tumupad ng salita ang nangako sa atin"

 
At Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:36:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the anonymous person who wrote:

"If you are not a plant, you must be really stupid.

Haven't you heard the statement "innocent until proven guilty"? In this case, there has not been a case filed against AY. The minute he is proven guilty, you have every right to inform them.

In fact, the whole blog is libelous, that is why everyone is hiding under "anonymous" or a monicker."

Response:

Sorry but I don't get your point.
Seems you defend AY so much. Though no case has been filed against him or any of his family members and officers, people should not be stopped from writing USF about PPI, Lifetime Plans, petition for rehab and the stay order. These are all facts. What is libelous about this? Are you worried that looking into this matter will open a "can of worms"?

 
At Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:48:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the person who posted...

"Haven't you heard the statement "innocent until proven guilty"? In this case, there has not been a case filed against AY. The minute he is proven guilty, you have every right to inform them."

If you don't want to be charged with libel, then don't write USF. If other people would want to do so, since they believe that giving AY such recognition now is not appropriate considering the recent events involving his own company, YGC, that's none of your business!

I, myself, have written USF.

 
At Tuesday, May 10, 2005 9:04:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't recall Philip claiming to be a lawyer. So, that stuff about Philip not being in the roll of lawyers is a non-issue.

Perhaps, we should instead look into the resume of Judge Romeo Barza, who is the judge of the rehabilitation court, and present president of the Phil Judges Association.

Once upon a time, he was a partner at Carpio Villaraza Barza Cruz and Rosell law firm.

Considering the closeness of The Law Firm to PGMA (who lavishly acknowledged the support of AY), there may be grounds to have the judge inhibit himself, if only to save the judicial process from being tainted by perceptions of partiality, whether the perception is true or not.

 
At Tuesday, May 10, 2005 9:15:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Corporate Guy, if the spin-off was to protect the other planholders, why did the Yuchenco group go three steps further:
(a) to divest Grepalife's shareholdings in PPI; (b) to transfer the shareholdings in Lifetime Plans to a P100,000 capitalized company; (c) have their directeors and officers resign from PPI?

A corporate guy like you should easily recognize that (a) these are cheap corporate moves to EVADE liability, and (b) piercing the veil of corporate fiction is justified in this instance to hold Grepalife and the key directors and officers directly liable to PPI planholders.

PEP Coalition, we need your documentation of the PPI scamming process (complete with annexes, certified true copies of documents that are on file with government offices) to substantiate our criminal case for SYNDICATED ESTAFA (non-bailable) against the 5 key Yuchengco directors/ officers who were with PPI from the time they sold the open-ended plans to the time PPI approved the filing of petition for rehab.

DUPED PLANHOLDER

 
At Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:46:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey how much did we pay the writer of inquirer for the article? everybody who witnessed the event know that it was piccio who started the shouting match.

 
At Tuesday, May 10, 2005 5:26:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the above poster,

Good try but not quite, Yuchengco stooge! Everyone knows it's Yuchengco who has the money to pay off writers.

 
At Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:31:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"everybody who witnessed the event know that it was piccio who started the shouting match."

Si Mr. Marfori po ang unang nagtaas ng boses. Kung hindi ba naman t_n_a yung dalawang emcee - tig-isa pa sila ng mic. Sana pinahiram nila yung isang mic sa mga planholders. Tinago na nga nila ang perang pang tuition ng anak natin, mic lang ayaw pang pahiram. Over na talaga. At kung hindi man si Mr. Marfori o si Atty. Piccio ang nagtaas ng boses, ang dami namin doong handang magtaas ng boses para sa aming mga anak.

Ang galing talaga ng presentation. Mas advantageous daw ang fixed-value plan kaysa open-ended plan. Kaya pala palpak ang management ng Pacific Plans - saang kangkungan kaya nila kinuha yung mga taong gumawa ng presentation?

 
At Friday, May 13, 2005 11:17:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Yuchengcos will defend their name
DEMAND AND SUPPLY By Boo Chanco
The Philippine Star 05/13/2005

The good news is, after this column urged the Yuchengcos to defend their name and live up to their commitment to Pacific planholders, they released a story that the taipan Al Yuchengco will contribute P250 million of his personal funds to help planholders enroll their children this June. The amount, though substantial, is not nearly enough to cover potential liabilities to holders of the traditional or open-ended plans. But it is a start.

It is also encouraging that recent press releases from Pacific Plans have become less legalistic and more appreciative of the concerns of planholders. Even as they also appeal for more understanding of their own predicament, officials of Pacific Plans are now talking of doing what they can to rehabilitate the enterprise. They earlier gave the impression they did all they could to isolate Pacific Plans and let it and the planholders wither in the legal vine.

Shortly after my column was published, Helen, the daughter of the taipan who is carrying the day-to-day burden of running the taipan’s enterprises, also sent word through mutual friends to reassure me that the Yuchengco family understands everything I wrote and "would do what is humanly possible to help all affected planholders."

I subsequently sat down with her and she reiterated the family’s general commitment in principle, even as she couldn’t be more specific about how far they could go by way of support to Pacific Plans. I guess this is because no one can really estimate at this point, the amount of money needed to rescue Pacific Plans completely. Given our extremely volatile economic (and political) situation, any number is at best, a moving target. Even the schools have refused attempts of Pacific Plans to tie them down to a number. Everything depends on how well or how badly our economy fares.

But Helen emphasized that contrary to what many people may think, they did not mismanage Pacific Plans. She didn’t compare what is happening to Pacific Plans with the other pre-need plan companies in trouble today. But she didn’t have to. A week or two ago, the bank managing the trust fund of that other pre-need plan came out with the revelation that they lost over a billion pesos by investing in a related real estate company. In contrast, Helen assured me that their investment portfolio at Pacific Plans can be defended at Plaza Miranda.

Helen explained that they would not be in trouble if two major events didn’t happen: Deregulation of tuition fees and the Asian financial crisis. The deregulation of tuition fees rendered their assumption of an annual 10-percent increase in tuition fees inoperative. And we all know the returns on investments – T-bills, real estate, business – were pitifully low following the outbreak of the Asian financial crisis, considerably reducing their earnings projections. The fine print in the pre-need contracts they wrote gives them a way out. But, she pointed out, they have so far lived up to the promise as best as they can.

To prove to me that their investment decisions for Pacific Plans are defensible, Helen showed me sample plans, comparing what they have paid out, how much the plan was sold to the plan holder and what could have been earned by the purchase plan under various investment options. In fairness, she did have a point.

For example, a plan for a four-year college course in an exclusive school bought in 1987 for P29,200 due for availment on school years 2002-2005, paid out total benefits of P368,603 for an internal rate of return of 19.60 percent and a return on investment of 1,262.34 percent. A very wise investment, indeed!

When they sold that plan, they assumed they would pay out benefits amounting to P128,027 compared to the P368,603 they actually paid out. Their trust fund investments earned P105,484, or an IRR of 10.59 percent and a ROI of 438.45 percent, which is not that far from their assumption even if they actually earned less. If the money were invested in T-bills, it would have earned P124,666 with an IRR of 10.50 percent and a ROI of 426.94 percent. If the money was merely parked in a time deposit, it would have made P91,521 or an IRR of 8.18 percent and a ROI of 313.43 percent.

There were other examples presented to me, all clearly showing that their trust fund investment earnings were within the ballpark of what alternative investments could have earned during the period in question. In other words, the numbers seem to indicate that they did not mismanage the funds, but were just a victim of unforeseen events.

Even the investment in Napocor bonds cannot be looked at as evidence of a bad investment decision, as some critics point out. Napocor may stink, but its bonds are totally guaranteed by the government. It is as good as a government Treasury bill, even better, because the Napocor bonds Pacific Plans invested in are dollar denominated, giving the trust fund an extra measure of protection.

But, I pointed out to Helen, if you had nothing to hide, why did you resort to such a sneaky tactic as establishing another company and transferring the good assets to it, leaving the open-ended ones in Pacific Plans? Helen insists they had the best of intentions of safeguarding the interests of the buyers of fixed benefit plans, while they figured out how to save the open ended plans left at Pacific Plans. Their mistake, Helen now realizes, is they allowed the lawyers to do the talking. When the legal Rottweilers take over, of course people get threatened and offended.

Still, I insisted to Helen, the numbers and your best intentions notwithstanding, the family must still live up to the public’s high expectations, to preserve the value of the name built up by her father. Any default now would also have serious social consequences, and threaten their other businesses that are all dependent on the public’s unwavering trust.

She looked up at me with a tired and worried look and nodded agreement, as if to say how dare you pontificate the obvious. Of course she realizes all that. She didn’t get to where she is by being dense. The reputably tough lady that she is, she just feels helpless at the impossibility of pinning down a number that keeps on changing.

Actually, if you think hard about it, any holder of an open-ended plan from any company should have reason to worry. Looking at the numbers, it does seem impossible for even the best managed trust funds to make the kind of return on investment needed to service those open-ended plans. Perhaps Pacific Plans was just honest enough to admit early on that they have a problem. In hindsight, the pre-need industry made a colossal miscalculation in selling those open-ended plans. I am not sure there is a viable way out of this bloody mess now.

Unfortunately for Helen, the Yuchengcos have a name and reputation to protect. Unlike the Sobrepeñas whose problems with their real estate business have been legendary long before they experienced any problem with CAP, the Yuchengcos have managed their businesses well. I would be very surprised if they decided to turn their backs on a legacy that Helen’s 82-year-old father, now recuperating from quintuple heart bypass surgery, built over his lifetime.

Still, it is a good idea for Pacific Plan holders to keep the pressure on the Yuchengcos. But as a CAP planholder, I would trade places with them in an instant. They are lucky they are dealing with the Yuchengcos.

I do not expect the Sobrepeñas to lose sleep over the amount I am entitled to collect from the last year of my youngest daughter’s CAP plan, given their string of payables: Over a billion pesos to BCDA for Camp John Hay and the billions of pesos owed to hundreds or thousands of buyers of Fil-Estate projects. I have a nephew who bought a lot in Forest Hills, a Fil-Estate subdivision. He completed his payments of over a million pesos years ago, but is unable to get his title up to now. Isn’t that against the law? But, duh… what else is new?

I know it is small comfort to affected Pacific Plan buyers but they are still luckier than I am. Even if the future may not be that clear now, at least, they have more reason to hope

 
At Friday, May 13, 2005 11:19:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Si Mr. Marfori po ang unang nagtaas ng boses. Kung hindi ba naman t_n_a yung dalawang emcee - tig-isa pa sila ng mic. Sana pinahiram nila yung isang mic sa mga planholders. Tinago na nga nila ang perang pang tuition ng anak natin, mic lang ayaw pang pahiram. Over na talaga. At kung hindi man si Mr. Marfori o si Atty. Piccio ang nagtaas ng boses, ang dami namin doong handang magtaas ng boses para sa aming mga anak.

TO THE POSTER ABOVE:

Have you read the column of Vic Agustin today (Cocktales)?

Primadonna kayo talaga ano!

So tanggal na rin Vic Agustin and Boo Changco sa Honor Roll nyo? Di ba ganyan naman kayo, lahat ng di kakampi, PRO PPI na!

 
At Friday, May 13, 2005 4:20:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Good try but not quite, Yuchengco stooge! Everyone knows it's Yuchengco who has the money to pay off writers."

You're wrong, stooge! Mas maraming pera ang Erap group. Ask Philip Piccio!

 
At Monday, May 30, 2005 11:12:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

your a big damaged!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dmn................

 
At Monday, May 30, 2005 11:14:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

suck this educational plan

 

Post a Comment

<< Home