Five Vision Consultancy, Inc., Intercontinental Services, Inc., Conrad Group and Associates, Inc., Servlink Cargo, Inc.

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SEC Building, EDSA, Greenhills Republic of the Philippines Mandaluyong City 10

In the Matter of FIVE VISION CONSULTANCY INC.. SERVICES,INC., INTERCONTINENTAL CONRAD

INC., SERVLINK CARGO, INC. GROUP AND ASSOCIATES, CED CASE NO. 02-2674

ASSOCIATES. CONRAD GROUP INC. AND

SERVLINK CARGO, INC.

Movant.

ORDER

Before the Commission En Banc is a MOTION TO LIFT CEASE

AND DESIST ORDER dated February l7, 2003 filed by CONRAD

GROUP AND ASSOCIATES, INC. (hereinafter referred to as CGA) and

SERVLINK CARGO, INC. (hereinafter referred to as SERVLINK)

The other corporations involved in the instant case namely FIVE

VISION CONSULTANCY, INC. (hereinafter referred to as Five Vision)

and INTERCONTINENTAL SERVICES, INC. (herein after referred to

as ISI) failed to file their respective MOTION TO LIFT CEASE AND

DESIST ORDER.

CGA and SERVLINK's MOTION TO LIFT CEASE AND

DESIST ORDER was a necessary pleading brought about by this

Commission's CEASE AND DESIST ORDER dated February 4, 2003 the

dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

VISION 'WHEREFORE, CONSULTANCY . premises considered, FIVE INC.

INTERCONTINENTAL SERVICES, INC., CONRAD

GROUP AND ASSOCIATES, INC. and SERVLINK

CARGO, INC., its respective officers, directors,

representatives, agents, and any and all persons, conduit

entities and subsidiaries claiming and acting for and in

their behalf are hereby ordered to immediately CEASE

AND DESIST from further offering, soliciting and the

accepting deposits or placement of investments from the

general public. This Cease and Desist Order should not

prevent herein respondents from returning the

investments/contributions made by various persons with

them. Should these corporations opt to file for a formal

request to lift this CDO within a non-extendible period of

five (5) days from receipt hereof, the same must show

cause why the CDO should not be made permanent."

Under Rule III, Part 3 of SEC Circular No. 4, Series of 2001, a

respondent corporation becomes the movant' and thereafter has the

burden of proof to show its non-involvement in the alleged

offense/infraction in order to lift a Cease and Desist Order. In view of

FIVE VISION and ISI's failure to file their MOTION TO LIFT CEASE

AND DESIST ORDER we therefore have no choice but render the CEASE

AND DESIST ORDER permanent as to the aforementioned corporations.

I See Article 2 (d).

2 We note that the Compliance and Enforcement Department has filed its MOTION TO DECLARE

CEASE AND DESIST ORDER PERMANENT in accordance with SEC Circular no. 4, Series of 2001 on

March 24, 2003.

2

On the other hand, in consideration of the timely filing of

CONRAD and SERVLINK's MOTION TO LIFT CEASE AND DESIST

ORDER a hearing was set on March 3, 2003. In the hearing counsels of

the CONRAD and SERVLINK brought boxes upon boxes of documents

intending the same to be marked and eventually to be used as evidence to

show that they were wrongly linked3 with FIVE VISION

CONSULTANCY, INC. and INTERCONTINENTAL SERVICES, INC.

3It must be noted that this Commission's Compliance and Enforcement Department (CED) alleged that

FIVE VISION CONSULTANCY, INC. and INTERCONTINENTAL SERVICES, INC. CONRAD

GROUP AND ASSOCIATES, INC. and SERVLINK CARGO, INC. in connivance with one another

are engaged in the unauthorized offering, solicitation and acceptance of deposits or placement of

investments from the public in violation of Sections 8.1, 26.1 and 26.3 of the Securities Regulation

Code. CED further alleged that the acts committed are Ultra Vires amounting to misrepresentation as

to what the corporation can do in violation of Section 45 of the Corporation Code in relation to Section

5.1 (M) of the SRC and 6 (1) (2) of PD 902-A, as amended. To support this allegation CED tried to

show that Five Vision offers an investment scheme where the guaranteed interest return is allegedly

generated from its foreign currency trading activities at Saxobank in Denmark. For a minimum of fifty

thousand pesos or USS 1,000.00 investment, investors shall receive a guaranteed monthly interest of

15 % for three months. Thereafter, the investor has the option to terminate his investment, and thus

receive the entire amount he invested, or renew the investment under the same scheme. For the

transactions, Five Vision issues postdated checks for the principal amount invested and for the monthly

interest of three months. CED further alleged that Five Vision, Inc. a firm they previously investigated

for unlicensed solicitation and acceptance of investments now continues their unlicensed activities

using Intercontinental Services, Inc., Conrad Group and Associates, Inc. and Servlink Cargo, Inc. to

avoid detection of the authorities.

In the aforementioned hearing it was agreed upon by all parties that

they would all be submitting their respective POSITION PAPERS twenty

days after the hearing, or on March 24, 20034. On said date, only the

Compliance and Enforcement Department filed their POSITION PAPER.

A Motion For Extension of Time (To File Position Paper) was filed by

CGA and Servlink's counsel on March 31, 2003 asking the Commission

to give them until April 12, 2003 to file their Position Paper.

Respondents counsel finally submitted their Position Paper on April 14,

2003

After reading all the pleadings and the annexes attached, the sole

issue left to be answered is whether or not CGA and SERVLINK were

able to prove that they were wrongly linked with FIVE VISION and ISI.

We answer in the negative. While there was a bombardment of

documents? showing the alleged victimization of the Ariola family by

Five Vision and ISI through Loan Certifications where the former were

supposed to have invested and thereafter allegedly duped by the latter,

this Commission is not blind to the fact that other schemes including the

latest administrative case against Multitel, use conduits to structure their

system in order to circumvent the law.

4 March 23, 2003 or the actual last day of filing was a Sunday, therefore based on the Ruies of Court submission must be done on the next working day. 5 Exhibits marked and offered as 7-A-1 to 7-A-10, 7-B-1 to 7-B-10, 7-C-1 to 7-C-10, 7-D-1 to 7-D-10, 7-E-1 to 7-E-10, 7-F-1 to 7-F-10, 7-G-1 to 7-G-10, 7-H-1 to 7-H-10, 7-I-1 to 7-I-10, 7-J-1 to 7-J-10. Majority stockholders of Servlink and Conrad, at least through the Articles of Incorporation namcly Alfonso R. Silvestre, Florencia Ariola, Louella Silvestre.

A

Likewise offered are affidavits of officers of Five Vision and ISI

stating that Conrado Ariola never worked for the aforementioned

corporations". We are in disbelief on how the Ariola family was able to

get affidavits from persons who allegedly victimized them. Did Mr.

Salas, Mr. Resurrecion, Ms. Naraja and Ms. Andaya really act against

self-interest? This Commission is aware of the fact that conduit

corporations simply juggle themselves and their activities in order to

escape detection. It is therefore not far fetched to think that some

corporations would be sacrificed to save the others in order to continue

operations. In the instant motion, we find the statements wanting in

credibility due to the circumstances just mentioned.

We adhere to the analysis of the Compliance and Enforcement

Department in its Position Paper stating that:

"A thorough perusal of the sworn statements of Mister Ponce and Ms. Talens, and that of other documentary evidence, nonetheless, would show that movants-respondents CGA and SERVLINK, and/or their officers and directors, indeed solicited or "processed' their investment in FIVE VISION and / or ISI. To be sure checks provided by investors (Annexes N to N-7 and Q to Q-34 of oppositor CED's Motion for Issuance of Cease and Desist Order) would show that the various amounts representing either their principal or interest payments were issued via checks by movant-respondent SERVLINK and Alfonso Silvestre Jr. to a number of investors.

1 See Exhibit 9, 9-A and 9-B.

C

In his Supplemental Affidavit (paragraph 8 of

Annex G of oppositor CED's Motion for the Issuance of

Cease and Desist Order), Mister Ponce stated that

"CONRADO ARIOLA solicited investments from us for

and on behalf of FIVE VISION. Investments were also

accepted and received by CGA INC. employees, namely MADELYN SORIANO, JEAN SY "AND JENNY

CODINA." If the statement of Mister Ponce was not

true, a straightforward denial by Mr. Conrado Ariola that

he did not solicit investments from Mr. Ponce would

have been appropriate. In fact, even movant-respondent CGA could have required its employees Soriano, Sy, and Codina to execute their sworn statements denying they

have received and accepted investments from Mister

Ponce. Curiously, these were not done by the movants-

respondents corporations.

Instead. what the movants-respondents corporations did was to make it appear that Mister Ponce and Ms. Talens invested with FIVE VISION/ISI on their own, "without the intervention of the Conrad Group or Servlink" and that "when the investments soured and

both Five Vision and ISI could not return their money"

they (Ponce and Talens) made a "crude attempt to show that the Ariola family owned Five Vision and ISI, hoping they can force the Ariolas to absorb their losses."

Unfortunately for the movants-respondents, such explanation merely strengthened the thought that the Ariolas and the Silvestres in fact had a hand in the

solicitation of investments from the investors for FIVE VISION and ISI for why would the investors, especially Mister Ponce and Ms. Talens, xxx implicate movants- respondents if the latter never participated whatsoever in the solicitation of investments."

6

In short, the written testimonies of Mr. Ponce and Talens are

material and relevant and were never impeached by the other evidence

presented by movants-respondents.

WHEREFORE, premises considered,CONRAD GROUP AND

ASSOCIATES, INC. and SERVLINK CARGO, INC's MOTION TO

LIFT CEASE AND DESIST ORDER dated February 17, 2003 is hereby

DENIED.

The CEASE AND DESIST ORDER dated February 4, 2003 is

herebymadePERMANENT onCONRADGROUP AND

ASSOCIATES, INC., SERVLINK CARGO, INC., FIVE VISION

CONSULTANCY, INC. and INTERCONTINENTAL SERVICES, INC.

The Commission is hereto-directing CONRAD GROUP AND

ASSOCIATES, INC., SERVLINK CARGO, INC., FIVE VISION

CONSULTANCY, INC. and INTERCONTINENTAL SERVICES, INC.

to show cause why their respective primary franchises should not be

revoked for violation of the laws, rules and regulations implemented by

the Commission.

SO ORDERED.

Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila.

April 22, 2003.

CLMLIA R BAUTISTA Chairman ATVV

FE ELOISA C. GLORIA Commissioner fOSELIA J.POBLADOR Comnissioner

CYah Aer.a MA. JUANITA E. CUETO JESUS EXRIQUE G.

MARTINEZ Commissioner Confmissioner

G