Ceres drivers fight back

By Modesto P. Sa-onoy

 

Coercing or suborning another to commit a crime indicates a weakness of one’s cause. Here is an interesting case of ten drivers of Ceres Liner who claimed they were forced by their supervisors and lawyers to swear to a lie and are fighting back. Their falsified affidavits were used by their superiors to file a criminal case of carnapping against the four Yanson children – Roy, Emily, Celina and Ricardo Jr.

I have touched on this case sometime back but just to refresh our readers’ memory, it involves the alleged car napping by the Y4. Using the drivers’ affidavits, Nixon Banibane, the Ceres manager filed a case on behalf of VTI claiming that on August 7 last year, the four Yanson siblings instructed the drivers of 55 Ceres Liner buses to park at the compound of Dynamics Builders owned by one of the four rather than in the VTI compound or terminal. Thus Banibane claimed the Yanson 4 stole the buses.

This criminal case was dismissed by the Department of Justice because Banibane failed to show proof that the Yanson 4 or any one of them instructed the drivers to bring the buses to the Dynamics compound and keep them away as thieves would do to hide the loot. The Y4 are also part owners of the buses.

The drivers who claimed were induced, threatened or coerced by the superiors to swear to the falsehoods are fighting back in affidavits last October 5; their complaint filed thereafter.

The complaining drivers are Omar Trono, Sammy Hubac, Clarence Fritz Recto, Cyril C. Caparida, Henry N. Ramirez, Ian Entroduction, Randy Moreno, Joel Q. Guinanao, Mario C. Mondeja, and Reynaldo R. Tolentino.

Who are the accused? A lot of people are involved, thus the case is considered a conspiracy:

Nixon Banibane, (Branch Manager), Pedro Bugtong, (Operations Manager), Edward Entor (Assistant Operations Manager), Noli Robles (Terminal in Charge), Shandy Becoy (Maintenance Manager); several lawyers of the company – Collin Dirk Isidto, Roland Jun Pugoy, Jubert Katalbas, Gerry Llena, Rovi Grace  Mendoza and Julius Entila; several other personalities in the company – Thessalie Pia Alisen, Maychellie de Jesus, Mary Grace Sealmoy, a certain female supervisor called Keith and several John and Jane Does.

They are charged with the crime of “Subornation of Perjury (Art. 183 in relation to Art. 17, RPC); Grave Coercion (Art. 286, RPC); and other applicable crimes.”

The affidavits of the complainants were executed either individually or jointly. They narrated the facts in Hiligaynon but since these were translated into English we will use the English version with minor editing for consistency and syntax.

The complaint said that “a careful perusal and comparison of the Affidavits by the Complainants, would readily reveal a discernable pattern of a grand conspiracy to force, intimidate and coerce Complainants into executing perjured affidavits.” How did that happen?

“The grand conspiracy begins with respondents Nixon Banibane, Pedro Bugtong, Eduard Entor, Noli Robles and Shandy Becoy (respondent supervisors) ordering Complainants and their fellow drivers and conductors to proceed to the Head Office of Vallacar Transit, Inc., (Head Office) at various dates. The orders given by respondent supervisors were not optional in nature.”

In the Joint Affidavits of Sammy Hubac, Clarence Fritz Recto and Omar Trono, they narrated that, “If we refused the directive of Mr. Entor and will not report to the Head Office (that) will mean a number of retaliatory actions from the Management ranging from non-release of salaries to non-issuance of duty slip and therefore we could not go on a trip or even if we were already issued duty slips, they can still stop our unit and will not be allowed to leave the terminal.”

It is normal procedure for the transport company to issue the duty slip which serves as the authority for work and the release of the buses as well providing them with all their needs, like schedules, routes and petrol.

What is tyrannical is the refusal to release the salaries of the driver who failed to comply with the directive. Does the company have this kind of policy – refusal to release the salary which an employee has already earned from his labor and use it to coerce an employee to lie under oath? Is this not plain oppression, illegal and immoral?

We will continue tomorrow.