Bob Sobprena Of CJH Dev Co Is The Winner? #RichFamousLife

Leave a Comment

The recent decision of Pasay RTC is making waves of disappointments to BCDA in which for sure, CJH DevCo Robert Sobrepena calls it, “The truth will prevail.” It’s merely “lucky” or a true form of harassment?

The case couldn’t revolve around Bob Sobprena only but to the whole entity which exercise their rights to put forward the said MOA between Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) and CJH Dev Co. The DOJ has singled Robert Sobrepena for estafa case, when in fact he has partners for this endeavor who also to be with him on this case?

I think, the DOJ hadn’t realized this before because their main focus was centered to Bob Sobrepena. Likewise, Arnel Casanova has been acting with this case without the true intention of the result. He allegedly done the propaganda against Bob Sobprena but never realized the true form of the case. This merit will add to the finality of the case in favor to CJH Dev Co?

In the past, the Sobrepeña camp contended that the BCDA agreed to defer rental payments under two restructuring memoranda of agreement (MOA) signed in August 1999 and July 2000. In the “whereas” clause of the last MOA, Sobrepeña said it was expressly stated that CJHDevCo’s inability to undertake its development plans and realize its projected sales and revenues were caused by BCDA’s admitted breaches of the lease agreement, delays in fulfilling its obligations and the detrimental effects of the Asian financial crisis on the Philippine economy. BCDA acknowledged the problems encountered by CJHDevCo, partially caused by delays on the part of BCDA, led to the deferment of rental payments.

The Pasay RTC noted that it was a joint committee comprised of officers of both CJHDevCo and 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.”

The Pasay RTC also underscored 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.”

All Rights Reserved@Fernando Lachica 2014. Powered by Blogger.