Prosecution questions GenCorp counsel’s fitness to testify

THE prosecution on Wednesday questioned the capacity of the in-house counsel of GenCorp. Industries, Inc. to testify in the Senate impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte.

Private Lawyer Lorna Kapunan, a counsel for the panel of House prosecutors, raised the question shortly after defense counsel Justin Nicol Gular presented lawyer Suzette Balucanag-Punay, corporate counsel of GenCorp. and Metro City Chow Foods Corp. as defense witness.

The two corporations, which hold Jollibee and Chow King franchises, are among businesses the prosecution links to the Vice President and her husband lawyer Manases Carpio.

The prosecution counsel inquired if Punay had with her authorizations from the boards of the two corporations for her to testify in the trial and identify documents.

“Your Honor, but may we be clarified? Because she is being presented as in-house counsel of both Metro (City Chow) and GenCorp., may we know from counsel, Mr. Presiding Officer, can the Presiding Officer please inquire from counsel or the witness herself if she is authorized by virtue of any board resolution from any or both of these companies to testify in today’s hearing?” Kapunan asked.

“Your Honor? To us, this is very important because otherwise, if she is not duly authorized by a board resolution from both companies, we will question her capacity, her capacity to even appear before this honorable tribunal and more so to testify on behalf of both companies absent a duly authorized board certificate, a secretarial certificate from both companies specifically indicating that she is authorized not only to represent the company, both companies, but to appear today in this impeachment trial and not only to appear and testify, but to identify documents pertaining to these two companies,” she said.

“Your honor, because we all know, we are all counsel, the board resolution is important because we do not want, this is not to preempt the testimony of the witness, but we do not want at some point in time that she will call, she will call to the attention of the honorable presiding officer or hide behind the lawyer-client privilege,” she added.

She said the prosecution also wanted to know “whether this witness really is qualified because she is neither in the general information sheets, her name is not there…She is also not in the financial statements of both companies.”

Kapunan pointed out that Punay’s name likewise does not appear in the articles of incorporations of GenCorp. and Metro City Chow.

“And that is why when counsel (Gular) says that she is in-house counsel, it is very important that we have on record a written board resolution authorizing her to appear and testify on behalf because even if she is summoned by virtue of subpoena, it does not behoove, it may not be a complete authority for her to testify here because she can claim or the companies that she represents here may claim that whatever facts or whatever documents she identifies here is without authority of these companies,” she stressed.

Impeachment court presiding officer Sen. Francis Escudero asked her what her basis was in asking for board authorizations.

Kapunan responded that the prosecution did not want the witness to invoke lawyer-client privilege in the course of her testimony.

Commenting on Kapunan’s statements, defense counsel Gular did not directly say whether Punay came with board authorizations from GenCorp. and Metro City Chow.

“Your Honor, her appearance today is by virtue of a subpoena, Your Honor. In other words, her appearance today is in compliance with the authority of this honorable court. And number two, Your Honor, I think we need to recall that a lawyer has an implied authority to represent the client,” he said.

“Your Honor, if the concerns of the good counsel from the prosecution is to hide behind supposedly the veil of lawyer-client privilege, it is number one, a premature objection. Number two, it is not an objection that she is entitled to raise and only the corporate clients can raise that. But number three, Your Honor, in any case, the witness will be under oath in respect to her answers,” he added.

Issuing a ruling, Escudero said the impeachment court “will, in the meantime, allow the testimony of Attorney Punay on her oath as a lawyer, upon which she owes candor and fidelity, not only to the regular courts, but to this court as well.”

“And although corporations cannot act on its own, we as of yet do not know, based on the testimony, if she will be testifying on behalf of the corporation or only about the corporation. But my presumption, Attorney Justin, is given that she’s here appearing as in-house counsel of the corporation, the two corporations, that she waives any privilege in regard to lawyer-client privilege as regards the two corporations, not necessarily the individual stockholders,” he said.

Senator-judge Francis Pangilinan said it would have save the impeachment court some time if Punay obtained authorizations from the companies she represents.

He recalled that in a previous hearing, when the prosecution presented defense counsel Michael Poa as its witness, Poa at some point invoked lawyer-client privilege and refused to answer questions.