Thursday, January 15, 2009 NTC orders dyHP to preserve tapes of Bañoc’s broadcasts
BUSINESSMAN Criso-logo Saavedra is pursuing the libel complaint he filed against a broadcaster-lawyer, answering yesterday a counter-affidavit the ra-dioman filed.
The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) 7, meanwhile, ordered the management of radio station dyHP to “further preserve” the recordings they made of the broadcasts made by lawyer Ruphil Bañoc.
“Preserve the said tapes until the court will order your station to make the TOA (Tape-on-Air) available as much as (the complaint) is now with the fiscal’s office for resolution,” read the order by NTC 7 Director Danilo Sy.
Saavedra filed a complaint against Bañoc following his Oct. 27 and 28 commentaries on a labor complaint Saavedra’s for-mer employees had filed.
Statements
Saavedra said Bañoc’s statements in the broadcast were “malicious, libelous, misrepresentations and untrue.”
He said Bañoc used statements like “gi angu-angu” or senile and “kawatan” or thief, imputations that “tend to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt.”
He said the broadcast was ill-motivated, adding that Bañoc is an associate of the law firm that is defending ex-Mandaue city mayor Thadeo Ouano in the Asean Summit lamppost case at the Sandi-ganbayan.
Saavedra filed the letter-complaint that resulted in the indictment.
Bañoc, in his counter-affidavit, denied the allegations.
In an interview, he said his broadcast dealt with a public issue that was brought to his attention by Saavedra’s own employees.
The employees, Bañoc said, went to dyHP and sought help in pursuing a complaint, saying they had been illegally dismissed.
Minimum wage
They also raised mo-ney claims, adding that for the years they’ve worked at the spa, they never got overtime pay and were paid lower than minimum wage.
He said he has documents to support his comments.
But in his answer to the counter-affidavit yesterday, Saavedra maintained that the issues Bañoc raised are part of an existing case before the Department of Labor and Employment.
“It is not the concern of respondent Ruphil Fernandez Bañoc discussing the merits of the case in public because it is subjudice and he can be charged for direct contempt. And as a lawyer, he can be charged for ignorance of the law,” he said. (KNR)
