“Will the matter be settled amicably?”
This is a developing story with legal implications, so prudence dictates that we keep the names of those involved on both sides under wraps for the moment.
What we know so far based on a resolution by the Prosecutor’s Office in one of the cities in Metro Manila is that it has recommended the filing of a swindling/estafa case against the owners and directors of a real estate enterprise that owns a building in the National Capital Region.
The complainant is a corporation engaged in the business of billboards, building murals, sticker advertising, and lighting installation of large sticker advertisements.
The complainant alleged that in early March 2023, an official of the real estate firm inquired about the placement of mural advertisements on the façade of their building, and encouraged the advertising firm. On March 9, after a series of meetings, they signed a lease contract, with the complainants paying an advance rental and security deposits.
According to the complainant, respondents allegedly made representations that they possessed power over the building and that they could do business with the advertising firm.
But the complainant later said the respondents allegedly committed deliberate misrepresentation and dishonesty when they knew that a Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) firm occupying space in the building had been objecting to the lease of the area by the complainant. And yet, respondents did not inform them and caused them to spend money, time, and effort in the construction of advertising structures.
On June 27, 2023, however, one of the respondents called one of the complainants to inform him that the advertising space supposedly rented out by the complainants would be offered first to a long-term tenant of the building, a BPO company.
Meanwhile, the complainants were told that they can use the north and south façade of the building as this is not included in the lease contract of the BPO with the real estate firm. It became clear that the BPO allegedly did not want the north and south facades of buildings to be used by the complainants.
Subsequently, complainants were prevented from proceeding with their advertising job with the ad firm on the space they rented in the building.
Complainants later discovered that the BPO’s vehement objection to the placement of any advertisements on any side of the building is because their contract with the real estate firm gives them the exclusive signage and naming rights over the building.
Among those charged is a tycoon who is a prominent figure in the country’s paper industry.
In a nine-page resolution dated September 9, 2024, a NCR-based Prosecutor’s Office approved the filing of estafa or violation of Article 315 paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) against nine respondents, who are all officers of the real estate firm.
“Evaluating the evidence, this office finds that there is prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty that the respondents will be convicted in court for estafa under Art. 315 par. 2(a) of the RPC,” the resolution read.
The complaint alleges: “There is dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation deliberately committed by the respondents, and such caused irreparable damage to the complainants.”
“Furthermore, complainant allegedly suffered significant monetary damage, and will continuously suffer considerable income and lose corporate goodwill,” the prosecutor’s resolution stated.
The prosecutor’s office set bail at P72,000 per respondent.
While a case has already been filed before the prosecutor’s office, we understand that there were ongoing efforts to settle the matter amicably to the satisfaction of both sides.
Hence, we prefer to wait until the contending parties decide whether to let the court decide on the issue, or to reach a mutual agreement that would keep the legal dispute from going out of bounds.
Whereto, QuadComm hearings?
With the explosive revelations in the series of hearings jointly conducted by four committees in the House of Representatives, it’s likely to end with a recommendation for the Department to conduct a thorough probe of the Rodrigo Duterte administration’s war on illegal drugs from 2016 to 2022 and to file cases against those responsible for extrajudicial killings and human rights abuses. But what will be the political repercussions of the explosive revelations on the Duterte dynasty’s bid to maintain themselves in power leading up to 2028? Hmm. This would be interesting to watch.
ernhil@yahoo.com
