Iberdrola has filed a lawsuit in the Bilbao court of first instance that requests the invalidity of the notarial act drawn up in 2004 at the request of its former director José Antonio Del Olmo to attest to the existence of alleged irregularities in the billing of security services and which has been key, as his testimony, in the case that is being followed in the National Court for the contracts of the electricity company with companies of Commissioner Villarejo.
The lawsuit, to which ABC had access, is directed against Del Olmo but also with the one who was head of Security at Iberdrola, Marcos Peña and his number two, Angel José Manuel Zarabozo, since both would have accompanied Del Olmo to consign that documentation before the notary.
Against him, Jacinto Ramallo, the lawsuit is also directed.
It is one more step in Iberdrola’s battle against the person who was once the director of Control of Corporate Functions of the company. He already filed a complaint against him in 2020 in Bilbao for the alleged falsification of this report and the proceedings ended in the Central Court of Instruction number 6 of the National Court within the Villarejo case.
just a few days ago the Criminal Chamber reversed its decision and forced to investigate if this report is false in order to evaluate the credibility of the rest of the contributions of the former director.
And after that step, Iberdrola has gone to the Civil jurisdiction to request “annulment action in relation to the Notarial Deed of Deposit dated December 20, 2004, granted by the co-defendants, Messrs. Del Olmo, Peña and Zarabozo, and authorized, in his capacity as a notary, by the co-defendant Mr. Ramallo “, since that is where it all began: with the papers that Del Olmo gave public faith.
In the lawsuit, they focus on the fact that, as stated in the record that appears in the National Court, the notary agreed to keep the documentation despite being in a sealed envelope and not knowing its contentIt was enough for the three appearing parties to state that “its content is not contrary to the laws, morals or good customs.”
“There is no doubt that the notary, the co-defendant Mr. Ramallo, did not know the content of the envelope, accepts the request and accepts the deposit, without checking, either, if the content of the same is in accordance with the law, morals and good customs , a trial that leaves the other co-defendants, as is also reflected in their statements in the Minutes, all of which obviates the legal obligations of their condition, “Iberdrola denounces in court. Therefore, they consider that “It must result in the nullity of the Act.”
The company’s legal services state that Del Olmo, Peña and Zarabozo, all working for Iberdrola, appeared on December 20, 2004 before the notary Ramallo “with the previously agreed intention of depositing a sealed envelope containing a series of documents or objects “.
Casesa and Cenyt bills
He describes them as “a sheet signed by the three appearing parties and several invoices signed, some of them by José Antonio del Olmo (…) in which he had intervened in the exercise of his work responsibilities, and of which, in breach of internal regulations and the applicable legislation, he made unauthorized copies, which he took to his home and later included in an envelope, which, in the company of Messrs. Peña and Zarabozo, was the object of deposit before a notary “.
The question for the company is that “there is no evidence in the Minutes of the documents that were inside of the envelope at the time such deposit was made, “since the notary acknowledges in writing that he did not open it,” furthermore, all those appearing in the Minutes did not have complete knowledge of the documents that were included. ”
It was not until January 2020 that that envelope left the notary’s office and did so by order of the National Court in the context of the Villarejo case. What was inside were eight invoices from Casesa, as well as one from the commissioner’s business network, other internal accounting documents from Iberdola and a report from Del Olmo himself describing irregularities that had not been reported in any other way. As he explained in the National Court, he did it to cover himself in case an investigation was opened one day.