The truth has come out-A A +A
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
I RECEIVED some calls last week regarding my column about Cebu Pacific’s failure to observe its own rules on fares, particularly on “flight change.” The e-ticket it states: "Flight Changes: Changes allowed but must be done not less than 4 hrs before departure."
One of the callers was young entrepreneur Glenn Soco, who shared his bad experience with Cebu Pacific. Here is his email to me:
“I could not help but send you this email after reading your column on your experience with Cebu Pacific. I myself had been a victim of the onerous business policies of the airline. I also believe that there is a growing number of aggrieved customers who want to ventilate their sad experiences with the airline.
“My most recent sad experience (where I got bumped off due to overbooking) is now subject of a court case that is pending before the Mandaue City RTC. It takes a lot of resources and effort to pursue it, but your case and those of several others give me more reason to do so it in the interest of what is fair and just.
“The airline is using ‘Cebu’ in its corporate branding. It is an airline franchise holder that should in every sense of the word accord its passengers and the public the genuine service that every Juan deserves.”
Monday, I met fellow lawyer Danilo Pilapil at the Regional Trial Court. He also narrated to me his bad experience with Cebu Pacific. He said the management promised to settle the issue but it has remained a promise.
Pilapil encouraged me to proceed with my plan to raise the issue before the courts of law. But some of my friends told me that Cebu Pacific has connections up there.
Another call came from a friend, Charlie Lim. I understand that Charlie works with or is a consultant of Cebu Pacific. However, Charlie did not tell me what he wanted to discuss with me. But I think it was about my column.
I perfectly understand that I am a virtual nobody vis-à-vis Cebu Pacific and its owners. But I appreciate the idea that the management of Cebu Pacific acknowledged its shortcoming when Charlie called to talk with me.
But I won’t speculate on what Charlie Lim would talk with me about.
The truth is slowly surfacing relative to the denials of the nurses and the management of Cebu maternity hospital re: the serious charge of taping a newborn baby’s mouth.
The issue against the hospital would have died a natural death had the management and
the nurses immediately admitted taping the newborn baby’s mouth and asked for apologies for doing it.
But in denying that it taped the baby’s mouth to put a pacifier in place and, worse, shifting the blame to the parents, the hospital chose the unpopular path of lying instead of being candid and remorseful.
The photo of Blaire Arsua posted on Facebook by her mother Chesiel Lyka showed how the Cebu maternity hospital treats the newborn babies. The photos are proofs of similar acts done by the Cebu maternity hospital. It’s appalling.
Arsua’s posts on Facebook starkly showed how the newborn babies were treated. The baby was born on Feb. 22. When she went to the nursery two days later, she found her baby and three others with pacifier in their mouth. These were held in place by a medical tape.
Arsua said, “I felt compelled to come out because I pity the parents of the baby, who complained. Sila na man hinuon ang nahimong bakakon. (They were made to appear as liars).” The Novals were accused instead of taping the mouth of their baby.
Arsua should testify at the hearing conducted by the Regional Subcommittee for the Welfare of Children (RSCWC). Otherwise, the officials of Cebu maternity would accuse her of setting them up or lying.
Commission on Human Rights (CHR)-Central Visayas Chief Investigator Primo Cadampog urged Arsua to execute an affidavit and attend the hearing that RSCWC is conducting.
Just describing the issues as a circus does not shield the management of the Cebu maternity hospital from accusations that it blatantly violated the rights of newborn babies.
Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on May 29, 2014.