By Modesto P. Sa-onoy
Baciwa general manager Atty. Juliana Carbon confirmed that during the disconnection they were received “peacefully by a certain guy and his wife holding the baby.” At this instance, were Lopez and Pugoy present?
Lopez claimed she did not see “a child there or his wife.” Was the baby placed elsewhere when Lopez arrived? Maybe but she could also be unseeing to avoid being lumped with the two others about the presence of the baby and wiggle herself out of the charge of child abuse. But whether she saw the baby or not she knew there was a family there. If Lopez was unmarried she would not know much about the vital need of a baby for water, but if she were, well…
To reiterate, Carbon swore she did not implement the disconnection “until the owner’s representatives Marilyn Lopez and Atty. Pugoy provided them with access to water coming from some units also owned by Olivia V. Yanson.” When the disconnection was implemented, she claimed “there was no altercation or objection from the couple who faced us.”
Her presence and the personal representative of Olivia and her lawyer was intimidating enough. What can Nico do but accept the inevitable? After all, he told the trio of his only protection – the “threat” of a legal complaint. That was all he could do in the face of the full power of Olivia Yanson. It was their time; his would be to resort to the civilized manner of going to court not taking the short cut, forcible methods of Olivia.
Carbon further claimed that she was “assured” by “owner’s representatives” that the Causing family “has access to water from another source.” Then and only then was the water connection cut off.
Seems compassionate but what was that “assured access to water from another source” mean? Atty. Pugoy and Lopez claimed in their counter-affidavits that when Nico said they had no more water Pugoy suggested and Lopez claimed that “all of us looked for containers and we were able to find some containers and gave the same to the complainant and the BACIWA personnel allowed them to fill the containers with water and after the container was filled with water, the BACIWA personnel cut-off the water connection.”
I recall a story of a robber who held up a man and took his car. Then the robber gave his victim a dollar and told him “get a cab”.
Like the actuation of Lopez and Pugoy their action was not compassion for the Causing family being deprived of readily accessible water supply, but consuelo de bobo. In fact, considering the other antecedents where Nico “threatened” them and refused to vacate, and the ire of Olivia for Causing’s defiance, the action of Lopez and Pugoy can be considered an insult, a contempt.
What does “access” mean? It is “the right to come into or approach.” Used as an adjective (L. accedere) it means easy to secure, get or enter. Olivia has denied the Causings that right to access water for their needs. There was no more access as she wanted it. That was what this whole tragedy was about.
If one gave a piece of bread to a beggar does that qualify as access or assurance to food? Similarly, is giving the Causings one or two containers of water considered “assured access”? We don’t know how big the containers were but a bottle is a container, as a drum and can only provide temporary relief. But that hardly, by any stretch of reason be considered access to water.
Would Carbon have desisted from cutting off the water supply if there was no assurance of “access” to water? I doubt because she must comply with the demands of Oliva. Thus in her defense, she redefined the true meaning of “access to water.” It was her excuse, no matter how slim and illogical. Indeed, by that definition, all residents of Bacolod have access to water because they can also get it from an open or deep well, buy them by the bottle and cans or draw from riverbank springs.
I believe Carbon knows what a true state of “access to water” means but why did she accede? Or did she really wait for that assurance of access?
Continued tomorrow.
