BCDA Deed of Assignment A Ploy? #OnlineBizniz

The Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) written proposals had acted to its most deadly venom against CJHDevCo’s locators, lessees and tenants that if they assigned their rights to lay claims against CJHDevCo, BCDA would not evict them but reward them with continuing lease over their properties under the original period agreed upon with CJHDevCo. It’s really happening to them that their actions moved by BCDA’s Deed of Assignment. The ploy of BCDA has greater effect to the businesses inside the Camp.

BCDA’s threatening locators, unit owners and sub-lessees who entered into contracts for a 50-year lease that they could be evicted if they do not assign their contracts with BCDA. The proposal clearly exposes the parties concerned to graft and corruption since once the properties of locators, lessees and tenants are returned to BCDA, BCDA cannot dispose them without the proper public bidding to these properties. Thus, giving their rights to the BCDA whims could create another level of legal battle against each other. Sad to say, that Camp John Hay’s image as tourist destination’s damaged by this never ending drama of Arnel Casanova.

By the way, locators, unit owners and sub-lessees that entered into contracts with CJHDevco before are all strangers to the BCDA-CJHDevco controversy and not parties to it. Under the law, they are possessors in good faith and cannot be deprived of their property under the Constitution. The Deed of Assignment the BCDA is seeking - is actually a ploy to evict locators, unit owners and sub-lessees from their properties, since they will be confirming the legal position of the BCDA. Aside from this, BCDA cannot ensure fulfilment of their promise not to evict locators, unit owners and sub-lessees.

Through the dirty ways of Arnel Casanova, the locators, lessees and tenants sued CJHDevCo according to their Deed of Assignment employed by BCDA. The BCDA should be suednot the CJHDevCo because of not honouring their rights to their properties and possessions in the camp.

The leadership of Arnel Casanova of BCDA caused unnecessary tension and uncertainty, which is bad for tourism and for business in general. It caused the negative element in pushing up the development of Baguio City and its people. Moreover, his propaganda to pin-down Robert Sobrepena with this case caused so many bad elements in the name of the government. Likewise, his actions with nothing to be considered from the court or other leaders meant for his uncharacterized personality to manage the government institution.

His arrogant behaviour and dirty tactics are more pronounced through the Deed of Assignment which nullified the rights of locators, lessees and tenants. They were subdued to their own understanding because BCDA had done the new beginning of Camp John Hay.

The tribunal decision states CJHDevCo will return the property “in good and tenantable condition in all respects, reasonable wear and tear excepted” interpreting it as a clean slate of property ready for occupancy. The agreement with CJHDevCo was terminated, 3rd party lessees contracts were also automatically terminated with the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. having no mention of lessees?

Of course, with this case, it started to create another gigantic problem to all especially the investors inside the Camp John Hay. Right now for sure, they are subjected to uncertainties while Arnel Casanova fought with all his weapons at hand. He is not a good example to all Baguio residents and its visitors. His arrogance bounds no limit within the framework of his job as government employee.

Lawmakers and Senate should mediate to this case as soon as possible so as not to heighten the squabbling inside the Camp. The development of the Camp is needed immediately for the good of all concerned.