Baguio Chronicle | December  5-11, 2015

ALL Camp John Hay Development Corporation (CJHDevCo) wants for Christmas is an end to the conflict with the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA).

"They just have to pay us and let's move on," CJHDevCo chair Robert John Sobrepena said on Thursday during a press conference it called in response to a BCDA advertisement the other week claiming the former "has been divested of its authority to manage and administer the John Hay Special Economic Zone." he said that the advertisement was misleading and that the Court of Appeals has earlier ordered the BCDA to return the rental payments made by CJHDevCo in the amount of PhP 1.42 billion for it to vacate Camp John Hay.

In a statement, CJHDevCo said that the BCDA has not paid the mandated amount to date. Because of this failure to comply with the CA decision, CJHDevCo has no alternative but to continue with the management of the leased premises in the John Hay Special Economic Zone."

However, Sobrepena said that they will charge the BCDA interest with the amount to be collected of at least PhP 1.6 billion.

"Let's move on," he said, adding that the impasse has caused losses on their part in maintaining the leased property without them collecting rent payments from tenants. "Since the impasse, we stopped collecting rent payments from our tenants, but only maintenance fees which is not enough to cover maintenance expenses," he said.

Last May, the BCDA issued a notice to vacate for CJHDevCo and as well as tenants and third party locators. But CJHDevCo filed for a certiorari to stop BCDA and the Regional Trial Court Branch 6 to implement the notice.

Last July 31, the CA's Special former 5th Division decision composed of Tijam, Myra Garcia-Fernandez and Victoria Isabel Paredes ordered the RTC 6 to cease and desist from enforcing the Writ of Execution and Notice to Vacate until CJHDevCo is fully paid of the PhP 1.42 billion in arbitral award granted by the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. (PDRCI) last February 11.

"Hence, we cannot require CJHDEVCO to vacate the leased property without any certainty as to when the amount of PhP 1, 421, 096, 052 will be paid," ruled the Appeals court. BCDA claimed to have paid the award but it did so with the RTC 6 as the beneficiary.

The CA likewise defended third parties who "are also vested rights holders who acted in 'good faith' when they entered into contracts with CJHDevCo."

In saying that the contact of the third parties must not be disturbed, CJHDevCo maintained that these rights must be respected as well "be governed by the law of obligations and contracts."

While saying that they are "stranger" to the dispute, third parties must not be part of the order for 'mutual restitution', since Article 1385 of the Philippine Civil Code says that it "cannot include properties currently in possession of third persons who acted in 'good faith'."