Wednesday, May 18, 2005

The SEC Moves to Protect PPI Planholders

Phil. Daily Inquirer - May 18, 2005 Posted by Hello


At Wednesday, May 18, 2005 3:36:00 PM, Blogger bing said...

can we get a copy of the SEC document online? dapat mai-attach ito sa ating opposition para officially ma-serve si judge Barza. or has SEC sent Barza the document already? let's follow up on this victory kasi baka maunahan pa tayo ng ppi at mag manufacture ng palusot. we can be sure they are not taking this sitting down and are actively doing something to counteract this.

At Wednesday, May 18, 2005 5:08:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

PPI clarifies points raised by PDI series
Posted 04:45am (Mla time) May 18, 2005
Inquirer News Service

THE PHILIPPINE Daily Inquirer over the weekend ran a three-part special report on the problems besetting Pacific Plans Inc. (PPI) and the pre-need industry.

Following is a statement of PPI president Ernesto C. Garcia containing what the company said was "a clarification on the points raised on the company in the May 15 to May 17 three-part series published by the Inquirer."

On the allegation "the assets of the company, which should have been used to pay their claims, had been spirited out of the company just before it filed for rehabilitation to hide them from the claims of creditors-the plan holders":

Our reply is that the transfer of assets by way of a spin-off was done with the approval of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which was furnished a copy of the audited financial statements showing the segregation of assets.

The trust fund, which is the major asset, is separate for each line of business. Other assets and liabilities are easily identifiable by their lines of business.

Protecting the plan holders

The spin-off was undertaken as an ordinary corporate restructuring mechanism. It was intended to protect, as fairly and as equitably as possible, the interest of the various parties involved, including the 400,000 holders of other types of plans.

SEC Secretary Gerard Lukban was even quoted in the same three-part series, "we saw that the spin-off (of assets) was for the protection of the plan holders and it did not violate any rules. We saw that it was a fair segregation based on the ratio of contributions."

ACCRA denial

On the subject of PPI approaching ACCRA law office asking to evaluate PPI's rehabilitation plan, please note that in the letter to the Inquirer dated May 17, 2005 which was furnished PPI, ACCRA denied issuing such an opinion.

We also wish to state that the counsel for PPI is Atty. Jeanette C. Tecson.

It was also said in the report, "they cut up the assets of PPI and distributed them to other companies so creditors and plan holders will not be able to claim them."

By diligent process

We underscore that the assets and liabilities transferred pertained to the lines of business transferred. Any income reported from the trust fund can only be used to pay for benefits under each plan.

On the allegation, "according to estimates in the industry, PPI's undisclosed trust fund shortfall was between P6 billion and P8 billion."

We wish to point out that the process of actuarial reserve valuation is arrived at by a diligent process under the supervision of licensed actuaries and submitted to the SEC for review and approval. This, PPI has done.

There was also a question, "where will they get the money to pay for their children's tuition in the coming school year? They cannot wait for 2010."

We want to stress that from PPI's P341 million and the P250 million advanced by Ambassador Alfonso Yuchengco, or a total of P591 million, PPI would have effectively reimbursed the full tuition for this school year's opening.

For those who cannot wait till 2010, PPI will provide a liquidity window of initially P300 million, upon approval by the court of the rehabilitation plan, from which the plan holders can encash the fixed value plan, if they wish to do so.

At Wednesday, May 18, 2005 6:14:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hahahaha! Still they peddle their half-truths to squirm away from this one!!!

Of course they are going to show the approval that they got through deceiving the SEC. But now that the SEC has publicly stated they were misled by PPI, this latest argument by PPI is worth nothing at all except as propaganda to those not yet in the know.

Protecting the 400,000 fixed-planholders? Another deception, since these planholders are not under threat at all if you go by the financial statements of PPI. It's really a big mystery why they keep on peddling this issue, except to divide and conquer everybody. Unless they made material misrepresentations in their FS... interesting where that leads to! They lied again?

"We underscore that the assets and liabilities transferred pertained to the lines of business transferred. Any income reported from the trust fund can only be used to pay for benefits under each plan." - from statement of Garcia

Well, I think this might be the heart of the deception. Before the spin-off, this would have not been an issue since it is PPI (and not the trust fund) which owes the liability, , so it's immaterial from which sub-part of the fund it dips into to pay for the liabilities. But with the evasive manuevers, the trust got split between Lifetime Plans and Pacific Plans, so suddenly, there is an issue, albeit contrived to precisely create the issue.

What does YGC stand to gain from this manuever? How about dumping the NAPOCOR bonds to hapless people like us, who were left in a sinking ship (a ship which the captain and crew themselves scuttled.... shouldn't they be the last one to jump ship?)

I can go on and on, but the point is that PPI and the whole YGC cannot be trusted, as they are great at peddling their half-truths... and we are supposed to be greatful to them for showering us with trinkets of tuition support and PR dole-outs while they steal our children's dreams? NEVER!

At Wednesday, May 18, 2005 6:34:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


At Wednesday, May 18, 2005 6:45:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

With the SEC's OFFICIAL stand against the rehab plan of PPI, our so called "noise making" specially by our president Mr. Piccio has been legitimized.

This Official SEC position has opened the floodgates for more support. Expect those who were just waiting on the sidelines to act accordingly.

More sympathy from the media. This morning, on PRIME TIME radio, the unusually quiet (in the past few weeks) Mike Enriquez is back to his usual fighting form - bashing PPI and its owners / mgmt.

We hope that Congress and/or the Senate will follow soonest with their investigation.

We hope that the SEC will be able to follow through. Specifically, in voiding the approval for the transfer of PPI assets to Lifetime - GPL - Exemplar.

We hope that Judge Barza will see the light. As I read in our comment to the court, there is a way out for Judge Barza. All he has to do is to agree that the principal office of PPI is in Binondo, Manila. Hence, the case should be handled by the Manila RTC. This way, he escapes controversy and improves his chances of being promoted to the Court of Appeals.

Finally, we hope that Mr. Yuchengco will do what Father Reyes said. To say : "Sorry for what my children have done. I will honor my commitment in full - to the last centavo".

At Wednesday, May 18, 2005 6:47:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just loved the MANILA TIMES headline

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Pacific Plans lied about funds–SEC

By Cai Ordinario, Researcher

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) strongly believes Pacific Plans Inc. (PPI) doctored its books to make it appear that liquidity problems prevent it from paying its plan holders.

The preneed company has filed a petition for rehabilitation and the suspension of payments to plan holders with the Makati Regional Trial Court. The SEC wants the court to dismiss the petition.

In its 68-page comment on PPI’s petition for rehabilitation, the SEC said PPI’s actions were done in bad faith and that the court should dismiss the company’s plea for lack of merit.

The SEC spokesman, Gerard Lukban, told The Manila Times on Tuesday that the commission does not believe the preneed firm’s claims of liquidity problems.

He said the PPI made SEC believe from the start that it was a financially strong company.

“They took us for a ride. They made such a good job of disguising their intentions,” Lukban said.

The PPI “should comply with its contract with the plan holders,” Lukban added.

Lukban said the company even gave different figures regarding its trust fund in the audited financial statements it submitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and SEC.

In its statement to the BIR the company listed its trust fund investment as P6.34 billion. It its statement to the SEC it listed the same investment as P8.31 billion.

“What are they trying to pull off? Which is which?” Lukban said.

There’s more, he said. While PPI was insisting that it was not liquid enough to pay off the plan holders’ premiums, SEC said the company even declared a 10-percent stock dividend equivalent to 1.91 shares on December 15, 1999.

“[The] P121,110,095 included in the 1999 realized gross profits was realized on educational, pension and memorial plans which have lapsed beyond two years,” SEC said.

In its audited financial statement on December 31, 2000, PPI declared a P10,505,000 cash dividend and a realized gross profit of P179,383,745 from educational, pension and memorial plans which have lapsed beyond two years.

SEC said PPI’s petition before the court was meant to “tie the hands” of SEC to prevent the commission from prosecuting PPI on its own terms.

“The hasty recourse to this court appears to be a ploy on the part of Pacific Plans to elude SEC intervention and enable it to force its swap offer to the plan holders in the guise of a rehabilitation proceeding,” SEC said.

The bottom line, Lukban said, is the SEC doesn’t believe PPI’s allegations.

Asked for comment by The Times, PPI President Sonny Garcia said the company was still formulating its response to the SEC motion before the Makati court.

At Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:07:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just 2 comments on

"PPI clarifies points raised by PDI series Posted 04:45am (Mla time) May 18, 2005 By Inquirer News Service"

ACCRA denial

On the subject of PPI approaching ACCRA law office asking to evaluate PPI's rehabilitation plan, please note that in the letter to the Inquirer dated May 17, 2005 which was furnished PPI, ACCRA denied issuing such an opinion.

We also wish to state that the counsel for PPI is Atty. Jeanette C. Tecson.


Comment 1: It is correct that ACCRA Law did not give an opinion on PPI's rehabilitation plan. Their comment was on PPI's desire to avoid their contractual obligations to PEP-Trad planholders including those who got their plans from the secondary market. ACCRA law in short advised PPI that it had to honor its contractual obligations. I think that this is just a play for media mileage. Lets refute this input from the YGC camp.

Comment 2: Atty. Tecson, you should resign as lawyer/spokesperson. Why do you want to further tarnish your name? I hope you have a conscience and can become an upright and decent person. All is not lost for your soul. Join us!

At Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:57:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If somebody LIED, was FRAUD committed? If FRAUD was committed, is someone, anyone, GOING TO JAIL? Going directly to jail? Do not pass GO? Do not collect 200?

I wish someone big like an owner or a director or an officer of the Board of this company goes to JAIL. Then all this shotchanging, these scams,by Big Business will stop.

Then we can all go after the crooked politicians....

Then maybe there will be hope for our country. For our kids. For everybody.

Hey, I can dream, can't I? You like my dream too? Then let's all work together to see this through.

At Wednesday, May 18, 2005 9:46:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just came across this item. Take note of the last parts. Has anyone taken a look at this?

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

SEC mulls sanctions, case vs. Pacific Plans

By Cai U. Ordinario, Researcher

THE Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may sanction or file a case against the preneed firm Pacific Plans Inc. if the court finds evidence of fraud or deception in its previous actions, according to Gerard Lukban, the newly appointed SEC secretary.

“Deception is to be determined by the court, not SEC. We’re looking into sanctions [but] like I said, di pa ’yun proven eh,” he told reporters last week.

“If there’s a showing that there was fraud in doing these things then [we will act accordingly],” he added.

The SEC is studying Pacific Plans’ case, and is looking at the options available to the commission, including investigating for possible fraud.

“There should be prima facie evidence,” Lukban said.

He stressed the SEC is more concerned about the company’s trust fund.

Lukban said Pacific Plans has only proposed to reorganize its education group, spin off its 34,000 open-ended plans and create another company, Lifetime Plans, which the SEC approved in March 2004.

“We approved it [because] we didn’t see any violation of the rules. There was no reason for us to disapprove [their] proposal,” he said.

Lukban further explained that the spin-off and the creation of the company was purely a business decision, which the SEC is and should not be privy to.

He said a regulator can only make sure that rules are followed. As long as a company followed the rules, it would not have a problem with the SEC, he explained.

“This is a business decision. Wag naman sana ibato sa amin ’yung sisi. The regulator [is only supposed] to make sure that rules are followed. So long as you don’t break the rules, you don’t have a problem with us,” Lukban said.

In a statement, Pacific Plans said it had wanted to put the company back on its feet when it spun off the fixed-value plans to Lifetime Plans in August last year.

However, the spin-off still failed to cushion the impact of the company’s financial requirements.

“We thought we could make it work. We wanted to outsource everything to keep expenses down. But time was not on our side. Enrollment crept up so fast, and we were forced to go to court to seek suspension of payment and file for rehabilitation,” Pacific Plans said.

The shift in government policy doomed the open-ended plans and it was because of this that Pacific Plans stopped selling them in 1992.

Last year, the company decided to spin off its open-ended plans to make sure its more than 400,000 fixed-value plans remain healthy. Without the spin-off, the whole firm, not only the education group, would have been affected, Pacific Plans said.

“We were paid a total of P13,800 on installment and got the last payment in 1995. But we had to pay from 2001 to 2005 a total of P240,000 for a four-year nursing course in Far Eastern University [FEU]. It is worse when exclusive schools are involved,” the company said.

Pacific Plans claims it paid each FEU plan holder P27,710 in school year 2001 to 2002; P45,184 in 2002 to 2003; P75,481 in 2003 to 2004; and P91,540 in 2004 to 2005.

“No company can make P13,800 earn enough to match the gallop in tuition increases. One semester’s benefit claim alone exceeds the total payments made by the plan holder,” it said.

“To cover these increases alone, we must earn 50 percent compounded each year for 10 years. And we didn’t have 10 years, let alone the 50-percent income,” it added.

Early last month, Pacific Plans filed for rehabilitation owing to liquidity problems.

A hearing at the Regional Trial Court of Makati is set for May 25.

Meanwhile, executives of UFJ Bank Limited (UFJ Bank), one of the major stakeholders of Pacific Plans sister-company Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC), were convicted in Tokyo for breaches of Japan’s Banking law, RCBC said in a statement.

UFJ Bank was fined 90 million yen while its two former executive officers were sentenced by the Tokyo District Prosecutors Office to jail for eight to nine months, with a stay of execution for three years.

UFJ Bank has apologized to restore trust and confidence in the public.

RCBC is the Yuchengco Group of Companies’ banking unit.

The Insurance Commission claims it is looking into insurance companies associated with Pacific Plans and other firms selling pre-need plans, specifically Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp. and Malayan Insurance.

Grepalife and Malayan have issued statements denying they have an exposure in Pacific Plans.

--With Maricel E. Burgonio

At Wednesday, May 18, 2005 10:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can assure you that Jeanette Tecson knows exactly what she is doing. She knew beforehand what she was getting into. So don't waste your time on her.

At Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:34:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thursday, May 19, 2005

Pacific Plans accuses SEC
of having double standards

Pacific Plans Inc. (PPI) on Wednesday lashed back at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), decrying as discriminatory its opposition to the proposed rehabilitation plan before a Makati regional trial court.

In a statement PPI’s legal counsel and spokeswoman Jeanette C. Tecson said the preneed company is ready to answer all charges leveled against it by the SEC in court.

Tecson stressed that the SEC is “obviously employing a discriminatory double standard” in dealing with the problems of preneed companies.

She said that although an SEC ad hoc committee had proposed a swap of the traditional open-ended plans with fixed-value plans as among its recommendations to bail out the ailing College Assurance Plan (CAP), “the SEC is treating PPI differently.”

“In contrast to its recommendations on CAP, the SEC is now telling us that our contractual obligations must be respected and that not even the courts should interfere with it,” Tecson said. “This is a clear case of discrimination and double standard,” she added.

Tecson said the PPI did not misrepresent its financial status in its statements to the SEC; “neither did it resort to rehabilitation to evade the payment of its liabilities.”

Calling the SEC allegations “irresponsible and reckless,” she said rehabilitation is not meant to defeat the claims of plan holders but is a way of speeding up payment to them.

The SEC did not say that the spinoff of PPI assets and liabilities to Lifetime Plans and other related companies was fraudulent, Tecson said. What the SEC lamented or characterized as fraud is PPI’s rehabilitation.

She pointed out that rehabilitation is an option for any company in financial distress, and that the rehabilitation plan must not be in any way perceived as an attempt to evade PPI’s obligations.

On Wednesday Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago filed a resolution directing the Senate Committees on Banks and Financial Institutions and on Education, Arts and Culture to investigate the “financial catastrophe that befell PPI and the laws governing preneed companies.”

“I want this to be a shotgun investigation of other similar cases in the past or maybe those that seem to be pending. Why are they all suffering from the same malaise? Is this an epidemic? And if so what is the systemic reason? It’s time we dealt with it as a pattern rather than as an anecdote,” Santiago told reporters.

She said the much-publicized financial troubles of the PPI and similar companies indicate an urgent necessity for a tighter supervision over the preneed industry.

On April 14 the PPI announced that it had filed a petition for rehabilitation with the Makati court because it could pay only P341-million worth of education claims.

On Tuesday the SEC alleged that the PPI doctored its books to project that its liquidity problems prevented it from paying its plan holders.

Santiago said the supposed fabrication made by the PPI to hide its true financial situation and the SEC’s dilly-dallying on the matter would be the principal issues that will be raised during the inquiry.

She blamed the SEC for not taking earlier action as soon as it had known that it had been taken for a ride.

“We can’t wait for a third or fourth preneed company to follow the path of CAP and the PPI. We’re not talking of companies alone, we’re talking hundreds of thousands of students whose future is being affected,” Santiago said.

The PPI has 34,000 plan holders, 16 of whom have already filed for educational claims for the school year 2005-06. The financial obligations of the PPI to its plan holders are pegged at P350 million for the present enrollment period alone, but it claims it only has P341 million in its coffers.

Sen. Mar Roxas, chair of the Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce, said the SEC should continue to take a proactive role on the supervision of the preneed companies.

“Whatever action the SEC will take would be welcome, since these companies are under its supervision. It can determine the true financial condition of these companies,” Roxas said.

The Committees on Trade and Commerce and on Banks and Financial Institutions conducted a joint hearing on CAP in February after hundreds of parents who bought CAP preneed education plans complained that the company was unable to pay their children’s tuition.
--With Patricia Esteves

At Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:47:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pirating from government
The Philippine Star 05/19/2005

Poor Fe Barin. After resigning from the heavy work load of the Energy Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman seems to be handling one ticking bomb after another.

First, there were pre-need firms, College Assurance Plans Phils., Inc. Pacific Plans, Inc. And now, there’s TPG Corp., a member of the LBC Group, whose trust fund was found to be deficient by P910 million as of November 2002.

As required by law, the corporate fund, which is used for the company’s operation, is managed by the company while the trust fund, which involves other people’s money, is managed by a third-party or independent financial institution. In this particular case, the trust fund manager was investment firm ATR-Kim Eng Capital Partners, Inc..

ATR is the acronym of chairman Ramon Arnaiz, president Manuel Tordesillas, and Lorenzo Roxas. Kim Eng is ATR’s Singaporean partner.

Based on one particular complainant, Carlos Araneta, who copy furnished Bangko Sentral Governor Rafael Buenaventura and Philippine Stock Exchange president Francis Lim, the manager of the TPG trust fund – which had since divested from TPG – was guilty of "serious breach of fiduciary duty and gross mismanagement of trust funds of TPG."

At Thursday, May 19, 2005 8:00:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Breaktime: Praying it safe
Posted: 1:13 AM | May 19, 2005
Conrado R. Banal III
Inquirer News Service

WITH the media uproar against companies in pre-need education plans, the Securities and Exchange Commission has no choice but to take the side of the public.

But, of course, the SEC must play it safe!

A good example is the case of Pacific Plans Inc., which was the first and is so far the only pre-need education plan company that ever admitted to a serious liquidity problem.

The company is seeking court approval for its rehabilitation plan. The company said it needs 10 years to earn enough from its investments, plus the P250 million from Alfonso Yuchengco, to cover its obligation to some 34,000 customers-and only partially.

Those 34,000 customers are the holders of the legendary "open-ended" education plans, as against the "fixed-value" plans.

The open-ended plans, as the term indicates, are the "come-what-may" plans.

In the "open-ended" plans, pre-need companies in effect promise that they will take care of the tuition of the kids of whoever would be holding the plans, say, 10 or 20 years from now, even if by then the tuition would be somewhere in the vicinity of another universe.

Of course, anyone who holds such an "open-ended" plan of Pacific Plans, must be against the rehab.

It removes the, well, "open-endedness" of their education plans. The plan holders naturally want the company to stick to its open-ended commitment.

And so the SEC told the court that, yes, indeed, Pacific Plans must pay for the plans right now, this very moment, and it must pay for the entire tuition of the plan holders' kids, wherever in the stratosphere the tuition may be.

* * *

YOU know what? The SEC cannot ever go public with its approval of any rehab plan of any pre-need company, because the SEC itself is the pre-need industry's one and only regulator.

For the SEC, going with the Pacific Plan rehab is a public admission that it failed the public in its job as regulator.

How come the company is having problems? How come the SEC did not warn the public about its financial trouble, in the first place? Where in the SEC offices were the SEC officials sleeping?

Thus, the SEC cannot side with the company it was supposed to regulate. In the Pacific Plan case, the SEC must tell the court that it does not agree with the rehab plan.

Under the law, according to the SEC, Pacific Plans has an "open-ended" obligation. Its obligation, therefore, must stay that way -- meaning, "no end."

Everybody wants Pacific Plans, and the entire pre-need education sector, to keep their promise under the "open-ended" plans.

I also want them to pay up. Every parent wants them to pay up. I am sure that even the owners and executives of the pre-need companies themselves want their companies to pay up.

The only problem is, well, where the hell will they get the money? It is a LIQUIDITY problem, right? That means the pre-need companies do not have the money now, right? Anybody home?

I mean, sure, in taking the NO MERCY position, the SEC may be playing it safe with the public. But it is not exactly a realistic position.

To follow the SEC's wish, the pre-need companies will need lots and lots of prayer, plus a huge miracle, to raise the money for all the open-ended education plans.

What's that? Praying it safe?

Either a miracle, or this cute administration steps into the crisis and provides a liquidity mechanism for the pre-needs.

This, by the way, has been done before. It is not as if this cute administration is reinventing the wheel.

* * *

ANYWAY, "open-ended" plans have become a monster. Even the SEC admitted as much, when it banned that type of pre-need education plan in 2002.

For if the "open-ended" plan was such a good thing, why would the SEC prevent pre-need companies from marketing such a hot-selling item?

I think the SEC itself recognized, although belatedly, that the "open-ended" plans were killing the pre-need companies.

Thus, in 2002, the SEC figured out-correctly-that the "open-ended" plans were not realistic at all. That's why the SEC banned them at that time.

What, I wonder, makes the SEC think that the same unrealistic "open-ended" plans only three years ago, are suddenly so realistic to the SEC today?

It is even telling the court to require Pacific Plan to cover for all those plans?

Playing it safe. What else? The parents are angry, and understandably so, and the SEC cannot go out and explain to them a reality that they do not want to hear.

* * *

BELIEVE me. Today, employees of private schools have a little sideline from brokering "open-ended" plans in the secondary market.

Not everybody who bought "open-ended" plans years ago, are actually using them. The holders also sell the plans to others.

Because the tuition has gone up to another galaxy in the past 13 years, "open-ended" plans are selling today at a handsome profit.

On the average, based on the prevailing tuition, an "open-ended" plan enjoys a return on investment (RoI) of about 1,600 percent.

If the user goes to some exclusive schools, with their tuition having gone up to somewhere near the door of heaven, the RoI can even reach 2,200 percent.

Thus, in an actual real-life case of Pacific Plan, a plan holder bought an "open-ended" plan for only P13,800 some 15 years ago.

By the time Pacific Plan was done paying "open-endedly" for the plan, it has spent a total of P310,000.

Nobody, no matter how good they are in financial investments, can earn that much. Not in this country! Not if you are doing legitimate business! Illegal numbers games like "jueteng," and drugs, sure! But not legitimate business!

Believe me, even employees of private schools cannot make that much money as brokers in the thriving secondary market for "open-ended" plans.

At Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:42:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

with the press realeses of tecson, are ppi now admitting that since CAP after failing to meet its obligations to their planholders and seems to be scot free from any criminal liablities (at least until now) gives ppi the right and the idea of creating a scenario that would also allow them not to meet their obligations, the CAP may have their own problems but ppi deliberately created a moro-moro, the only difference was while it takes cap planholders more that a year to file a class suit, it takes ppi planholders only more than a week to get organized and exposed the evil plan concocted by the ygc group of companies, and yet they the ppi still have the nerve to cry foul!@@######grrrrrrrr

At Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:47:00 PM, Blogger bing said...

i have both CAP and PPI plans. to their credit, CAP has not lied to me. they have been late in payment but so far, knock on wood and praise God, they have endeavored to honor their commitment. i guess "honor" is still present in the Sobrepenas vocabulary. on the other hand, ppi has lied and continues to lie. they have schemed against us ordinary citizens with all their might and corporate machinery and political connections like a big bully goliath taking on a puny-looking david. buti na lang itong david e may pep coalition na kasangga. shame on the yuchengcos for being such exploiters of the poor, such cheats and scoundrels. walang "honor", walang paninindigan sa kanyang binitawan na salita. i will teach my children and grandchildren to teach their offspring to spit on the name yuchengco and never trust them again for as long as i have descendants. lamunin ninyo ang inyong kayamanan at mabulok sana sa mga bituka ninyo at inyong mga anak at apo sa kahulihulihan ng inyong lahi. mga yuchengco...walang-hiya! mandurugas! magnanakaw ng kinabukasan ng walang malay na bata.

At Thursday, May 19, 2005 1:08:00 PM, Anonymous YUCK! said...

I don't know why someone bothered to post the article by Conrado Banal. I NEVER bother to read his artices because he is never objective and very unprofessional and wise-guyish in his style. He has been caught lying about other subjects and I'm sure would not hesitate to lie about this one.

At Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:19:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"guess "honor" is still present in the Sobrepenas vocabulary. "

Have you read Boo Chanco's column detailing a non-delivery of a land title bought from a sobrepena company?

At Friday, May 20, 2005 11:09:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

“No company can make P13,800 earn enough to match the gallop in tuition increases. One semester’s benefit claim alone exceeds the total payments made by the plan holder,” it said.

At Friday, May 20, 2005 11:58:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

remember Section XV

At Friday, May 20, 2005 1:52:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

remember estoppel...

Publications & Seminars
Related Articles: Business Law/Litigation

Estoppel: It's not a stop sign in Bosnia or a cork in a bottle of Italian Wine (A whimsical article)

Lord Coke, the noted English jurist once wrote, "'Estoppe' commeth of the French word estoupe, from whence the English word stopped: and it is called an estoppel or conclusion, because a man's own act or acceptance stoppeth or closeth up his mouth to allege or plead the truth." Great, but what does that mean? Well, "estoppel" is a legal doctrine that will, under the right circumstances, forbid you from telling the truth! That may seem quite surprising in a court system that takes great pains to ensure that litigants tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." But, sometimes the truth would be unjust, and that is when estoppel takes effect.

If you lie about a fact, and another party believes your lie, relies on it, and is harmed as a result, the court will treat your lie as the truth. You won't be allowed to go back and claim that your statement was false; you will be "estopped" from denying the truth of your statement. This principle applies not just to speech, but also to conduct that leaves a false impression.

Estoppel can take effect in almost any kind of legal dispute, but it is most common in contract and real estate litigation, as well as disputes over agency (see article on Apparent Authority). For example: Able mistakenly identifies the boundary line between her property and Baker's property. Relying on Able's statement, Baker builds a sundeck, which now encroaches on Able's property. Able will be estopped, and will be unable to get an injunction to prevent Baker from building the sundeck. (Able will still be able to recover for the value of the lost land, but Baker will now own it.)

So be careful, or you may be estopped.

At Friday, May 20, 2005 2:17:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

above quoted from

At Friday, May 20, 2005 2:54:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Promissory estoppel requires (1) an unequivocal promise by words or conduct,

as per ppi contract, a promise and a guarantee to pay full scholarship at a later date, whatever the amount may be at that time

(2) a change in position of the promisee as a result of the promise (not necessarily to anyone's detriment),

as in; we parents, acting on that promise paid money to ppi which ppi freely accepted and generously profited from

(3) inequity if the promisor was to go back on the promise.

as in; matapos silang magpasasa at magpakayaman sa ating pera, despite their knowledge of the tuition fee deregulation bill and not saying or doing anything about it at that time knowing full well the implications thereof, all of a sudden want to renege on their promise (matapos nilang gatasan at itakas ang kita ng ating pera thru fraud, which is another matter). di naman makatarungan yun, di ba?

so effectively, wala silang karapatan na balikan tayo with that section xv clause at sila ay estopped from doing so. tama po ba?

At Friday, May 20, 2005 5:18:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

if we are going to follow the arguments of ppi that as early as 1992, they know that the trad. plans will be a problem in the future, then why do they still accept the annual payments for these plans up to 1996, why do they allow their agents to deal in the secondary market, the answer is clear, they have calculated that they can manage with the plans that were sold, but after seeing that the government did not take any drastic actions against the cap people, they the ppi think thay can also get away by not paying its planholder, they were too wise for their own good.... maybe who knows?????? let us all continue the fight and support the pep coalition

At Saturday, May 21, 2005 11:06:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At Saturday, May 21, 2005 11:28:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This whole hullabaloo boils down to one thing. WORD OF HONOR. Pacific Plans promised one thing and now refuses to honor its promise. Whatever reasons the Yuchengcos claim prevents it from fulfilling its promise to its clients who scrupulously kept their end of the bargain, will not wash, for one's word is one's bond.

That ,my friend, is the foundation of this whole business of pre-need, insurance and banking, KEEPING ONE'S WORD.

Destroy that, and you destroy the whole business. Sadly, the Yuchengcos have chosen to destroy the whole business by showing that WORD OF HONOR is secondary to PROFIT.

That is the saddest cut of all.

After all is said and done, going back on WORD OF HONOR, PALABRA DE HONOR, will spell doom for the Yuchengcos, no matter what they or their spin doctors say or DO. The word is out, THE YUCHENGCO'S WORD IS NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON.


Post a Comment

<< Home