With the latest triumph of CJHDevCo over BCDA through the Pasay City Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision, that junked with finality the P1.5-billion estafa case filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against Camp John Hay Development Corp. (CJHDevCo) chair Robert Sobrepeña last June.
It’s meant to really transcend the whole case into another level wherein Bob Sobrepena has the edge in conquering the battle over Camp John Hay? Likewise, it gave negative image to BCDA wherein, in the past, they almost grabbed the limelight for Baguio RTC decision.
The CJHDevCo could prepare in advance their strategies to combat the finality of this case, to ensure the winning ground over BCDA.
The Pasay RTC judge upheld his Sept. 3 ruling that BCDA’s president Arnel Casanova failed to establish probable cause in accusing Bob Sobrepeña of making false representations that the company was incapable of paying rentals for Camp John Hay.
This subject matter of gaining public trust couldn’t suffice with the ruling that CJHDevCo wanted the place to be developed to help the people of Baguio City and the Philippine economy as a whole. Nevertheless, BCDA made a quick stand that nothing can be seriously claimed without probing the cause. Their propaganda revolved around Bob Sobrepena alone, but not to the entire entity.
CJHDevCo Chairman Robert Sobrepena already done the MOA with BCDA to put forward the development of Camp John Hay, but never gave its proper consideration for the operation and management.
Let’s talk about the reason why the Pasay RTC decided to clear Bob Sobprena’s estafa case. The court noted that it was a joint committee comprised of officers of both CJHDevCo and Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) that ruled to allow the deferment of payments. If there was misrepresentation as to the financial condition of CJHDevCo, the officers/directors of BCDA who are members of the committee might have been remiss, if not fell short, of their duty to determine the financial capacity or incapacity of CJHDevCo to pay its obligations.
Also, Bob Sobrepeña’s transparency with BCDA, adding that there was no evidence that Sobrepeña concealed the corporate records and financial statements of CJHDevCo to BCDA or that he persuaded, if not insisted, BCDA to enter into the contract. The very stipulations of the MOAs appear to be a product of negotiations, verification and careful, if not meticulous, evaluation. The July 14, 2000 MOA was even approved by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel and by the Office of the President.
This decision is likewise conceived that Bob Sobrepeña and CJHDevCo have always been upfront and transparent in dealings with BCDA.
Read through the pages of your mind