The uncertainties and losses, the primetime drama, the arrogant behavior of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) President Arnel Casanova against Camp John Hay Development Corporation (CJH Dev Co) formed indefinite solutions which cannot obtain in peaceful endorsement but creating another legal milestone to be created until the end.
Some of the reasons why these uncertainties were happening at Camp John Hay:
The BCDA President warned the Camp John Hay sub-lessees, sub-locators and buyers to seek legal counsel so they don’t end up holding “worthless pieces of paper similar to what happened at the College Assurance Plan (CAP)”. The Sobrepeñas also own CAP, which defaulted on its obligations to pre-need plan holders.
The BCDA President cannot actually move on from being an arrogant person but his new propaganda for Camp John Hay really made all sub-lessees, sub-locators and buyers turned their heads in disappointments.
The Camp John Hay Development Corporation (CJHDevCo) accused the State-owned Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) of bullying for taking its wrath in inciting third parties into filing cases against them after having lost the arbitration case with the Makati-based Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. (PDRCI) over the long standing dispute on the lease of the former American military base.
Instead of supporting and promoting business and development for the citizens, BCDA’s hell-bent act of using sub-locators and sub-lessees of the economic zone has already become destructive and counterproductive which is now hurting Baguio City being the host of the former American rest and recreation area where local residents are supposed to benefit from the employment opportunities to be created and the overall impact of the development to the growing local economy.
The instability of contracts and agreements being entered into by government through the BCDA makes the primary purpose of the public private partnership (PPP) doubtful in the sense that there are no bad projects but what are existent are bad government proponents and bad investors.
When CJHDevCo inherited the project from Manuela, they were not fully informed that there was already a pending case before the Supreme Court (SC) that sought to invalidate the lease agreement until it resulted to the forfeiture of the corporation’s economic zone benefits in 2003.
BCDA was not able to deliver its commitments in the initial years of the lease agreement, specifically the delayed issuance of the environmental compliance certificate (ECC) for CJHDevCo’s projects, the full delivery of the developable areas among others. Business problems can be solved through sitting down with them to talk about the issues and concerns and devised solutions for the greater interest of the people. The BCDA administration now has become destructive and counterproductive which is now causing confusion inside the facility.
CJHDevCo challenged BCDA to accept the decision of the arbitral tribunal to pay them the amount of P1.42 billion representing damages and accumulated lease rentals it paid to the government since 1996 and they will turn over the property to the government as mandated under the ordering order to allow John Hay to serve its real purpose as an engine of growth in the city. They asserted sub-locators and sub-lessees are not parties to the arbitration case that is why they are not covered by the outcome of the case considering that BCDA consented to the Leasehold Warranty Deeds (LWDs) it had been issuing to interested locators over the past several years.
CJHDevCo will leave the property only after the issuance of the required judicial confirmation of the arbitral decision and the subsequent writ of execution after BCDA shall have paid to them the arbitral award of P1.42 billion. Prolonging the case would become counterproductive to the supposed purpose of the economic zone which is to enhance the overall growth and development of the city, thus, BCDA must already settle its obligation under the arbitral decision for them to subsequently turnover the property to the government.
The BCDA concluded that a judgement of eviction against a lessee affects his sub-lessee, even if the latter are not sued in the ejectment case because a sub-lessee can invoke no right superior to that of his sub-lessor, and the moment the latter is duly ousted from the premises, the former has no leg to stand on.
The BCDA must think it over and analyze the consequences of the sub-lessees stand when dealing them inside the Camp John Hay. Likewise, BCDA must immediately settle their obligations with the CJHDevCo, so that they can already turnover the property to the government to allow Camp John Hay to move on to the new developers. Making such problems with the businessmen can only cause another level of legal drama that could prolong and damage the Camp John Hay.
The fact remains that BCDA will not actually follow the tribunal decision in full, by squabbling for CJHDevCo’s sub-lessees, sub-locators and buyers. BCDA only wanted the Camp John Hay but not the investors.