BAGUIO CITY – The state-owned Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) said the executives of the CJH Development Corporation (CJHDevCo) are courting contempt of court by misleading the public on the implementation of the Writ of Execution issued by the Regional Trial Court Branch 6 in Baguio that orders them to vacate Camp John Hay.
It will be recalled that last April 20, 2015, the Sheriff of Baguio started serving the Notice to Vacate to CJHDevCo and all persons claiming rights under CJHDevCo. The latter refers to sub-lessees. CJHDevCo and the sub-lessees are given 30 days to vacate Camp John Hay.
According to BCDA Head for Legal Services lawyer Peter Paul Andrew T. Flores, CJHDevCo is just trying to delay the inevitable at the expense of some sub-lessees whom they have been led to believe that the Notice to Vacate is not directed at CJHDevCo’s “third party investors,”
Flores also said it was very clear during the pre-execution conference held on April 17, 2015 between BCDA and CJHDevCo in the presence of the Judge Cecilia Corazon Dulay-Archog of the Baguio RTC Branch 6 that “third party investors or vested right holders” which the court referred to as sub-lessees are covered by the Final Award issued by the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc (PDRCI).
“It is highly probable that the CJHDevCo may have deliberately withheld this vital information to its sub-lessees,” Flores said.
He said that what was very disturbing is the fact that following the pre-execution conference, CJHDevCo Vice President Alfredo Yniguez III, in a letter dated April 21, 2015 addressed to its sub-lessees, said that “the Notice to Vacate IS NOT directed to persons… such as CJH golf club members, Manor & Forest Lodge condotel unit owners, Forest Cabin unit owners, Country Home owners, Log Home Owners, lot owners, residents, locators and investors.” Flores added that this may open Yniguez to possible liability for contempt of court.
“The court has no other option other than to confirm and enforce the Final Award, especially since CJHDevCo opted to accept the ruling of the arbiters instead of appealing it,” Flores said.
Flores reiterated that under the law on obligations and contracts, it is the obligor who is liable to the obligee. This means that the obligor (CJHDevCo) is liable to the obligee (sub-lessees) for damages that may be suffered by the obligee from the non-performance of the obligor.
Flores added that the Supreme Court ruling in Guevara Realty Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-57469 has held that: “A judgement of eviction against a lessee affects his sub-lessee, even if the latter are not sued in the ejectment case. This is so, 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 sub-lessees’ right, if any is to demand reparation for damages from his sub-lessor, should the latter be at fault. The sub-lessees can only assert such right of possession as could have been granted them by their sub-lessor, their right of possession depending entirely upon that of the latter.”
Flores urged all Camp John Hay sub-lessees to consult the BCDA and JHMC Help Desks. He said the priority of the sub-lessees is to protect their investment and not fight the losing battle of CJHDevCo.
He said quite a number of sub-lessees have already signed up with the BCDA guaranteeing that they will not be evicted.
By Dexter A. See
