Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMPLAINT
offices at the Subic Bay International Tennis & Sports Center, Remy Field,
Subic Bay Freeport Zone [hereinafter, SBFZ], where it may be served with
charge of the Subic Bay Freeport Zone, with principal offices at Building 229,
Waterfront Road, Subic Bay Freeport Zone, where it may be served with
significant portion of the SBFZ’s Remy Field into a sports complex. A copy of
said LDA dated April 1, 2002 [but executed on December 13, 2002, is
attached as Annex A.
said MC and established, among others, tennis and badminton courts, and a
restaurant bar and sports store in said area, for the use and enjoyment of
1
both the residents and visitors of the SBFZ, at a development cost of
known as the Subic Bay International Tennis Center [SBITC], has been
was even used during the most recent SEA Games held in the Philippines.
6. Also, consistent with its commitments under said MC, the plaintiff
has, through the years, faithfully complied with its percentage of gross
use of the properties and facilities subject of the MC, pursuant to Clause 6 of
the same.
2
8. Said EIPMC called upon the plaintiff to establish within said period
four additional tennis courts, six to eight badminton courts and a new sports
renovate an annex building, or Building 494, located in the Remy Field area,
plaintiff submitted to the defendant its architectural and other plans for the
completed its sports bar and restaurant; established a restaurant and garden
café; started repair works on the annex building, which had been infested
with termites, and erected new steel gates and additional doors to protect
the same; and constructed a fitness gym. All these were duly reported to
the defendant, per the plaintiff’s letter dated December 9, 2005, a copy of
repair works on Building 494 even before the same had been formally turned
11. Six months later, the plaintiff submitted to the defendant another
obligations under said EIPMC. A copy of said letter dated June 5, 2006 is
attached as Annex E.
3
12. In a letter dated July 19, 2005, a copy of which is attached as
pursuant to the provisions of the parties’ EIPMC, consistent with its earlier
advise to the effect that it would like to start construction works in earnest
on said property, per its earlier letter dated June 1, 2005, a copy of which is
attached as Annex G.
formally turned over by the defendant to the plaintiff, despite the express
13. For the next year and a half, the plaintiff diligently went about its
14. To expedite and enhance its development plans and works under
the parties’ EIPMC, the plaintiff presented to the defendant some time in
Said plan would entail the plaintiff’s subleasing a portion of the Remy Field
area to Double Dragon Subic, Inc. for the construction of a hotel facility. A
copy of its letter dated January 23, 2007, specifying said proposal, is
attached as Annex H.
aforesaid proposal, per its letter dated April 19, 2007, a copy of which is
its letter dated April 27, 2007, a copy of which is attached as Annex I.
4
17. In August 2007, the plaintiff reiterated its request made about
two years earlier for the immediate turn-over of Building 494. In its letter-
commitments and, further, advised it that its Board of Directors had denied
“with finality” plaintiff’s proposal to construct a hotel in the Remy Field Area.
Annex J.
18. The plaintiff promptly complied with said request of the defendant
and submitted its report dated August 30, 2007, a copy of which is attached
as Annex K.
19. For the next few months, plaintiff did not hear anything from the
defendant, but noticed that Building 494 had been leased by the latter to
Philko Tae Kwon Do Training Center and the Subic Zambales Association
School. Plaintiff also noticed that the Soft Ball Field of the Remy Field Area
had been levelled and cleared. Its inquiries led to its discovery that the
defendant had leased said area to Double Dragon Subic, Inc. for the
construction of a hotel.
20. More than six months after it submitted its latest status report to
the defendant, the plaintiff received a letter [dated March 17, 2008, a copy of
others that the plaintiff had been in “continuous default” on its development
as follows –
5
“The statement that we are ‘in continuous default’ is a
complete surprise to me and my company. This is the first
time that you advised us in this manner ever since both our
offices have established communication.
submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant over the years, the plaintiff asked
22. The plaintiff likewise took said opportunity to voice out its
concerns with respect to the defendant’s award of the Soft Ball Field at the
Remy Field Area directly to Double Dragon Subic, Inc. for the construction of
sublease the same area to Double Dragon, Inc. for purposes of constructing a
hotel facility as part of its proposed High Performance Athletes’ Institute, had
been denied by the defendant on the ground that “is not in favor of
23. The simple questions were asked – why was the plaintiff not
allowed to pursue said hotel project with Double Dragon Subic, Inc? Why
was Double Dragon Subic Inc. allowed to pursue said hotel project in said
area?
Building 494 had not yet been turned over to it, despite its numerous
6
said property had, in the meantime, and during the effectivity of the parties
aforesaid EIPMC, been leased by the defendant to other entities, namely, the
Philko Tae Kwon Do Training Center and the Subic Zambales Association
School.
2014. Accordingly, the plaintiff has actually about six more years to
It appears that the defendant has totally ignored this stipulation in the
to Double Dragon Subic, Inc., Philko Tae Kwon Do Training Center and the
Subic Zambales Association School, for reasons which escape the plaintiff.
The plaintiff respectfully submits that, by reason of its actions, the defendant
cannot but be considered as in bad faith. Indeed, its aforecited acts cannot
7
28. Plaintiffs have discovered that, with the expiration of the deadline
has started taking steps for its take-over of the properties and facilities
oust the plaintiff from the properties and facilities it has established and
Agreements with the plaintiff, unlawfully oust the plaintiff from the subject
premises within the next few days and to take-over the same for purposes of
protecting its rights, for which services, it has agreed to pay attorney’s fees
allegations.
unlawfully oust the plaintiff from the subject premises within the next few
days will cause grave injustice and permanent and irreparable damage to the
8
plaintiff, for which reason, plaintiff respectfully submits that there is a very
urgent need for this Honorable Court to issue a temporary restraining order
Enforcement Department, from taking any step or performing any act for
demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists of restraining the
and its planned unlawful ouster of the plaintiff from its lawful possession and
the Subic Bay International Center, and the take-over by the defendant of
acts would clearly work injustice to the applicant; and constitute a violation
34. The plaintiff is ready, willing and able to post a bond executed to
that the plaintiff will pay to the defendant all damages which he may sustain
Court should finally decide that the plaintiff is was not entitled thereto.
9
Reliefs
contracts, including the parties’ EIPMC, and ousting the plaintiff from its
known collectively as the Subic Bay International Center, and the take-over
or third parties.
Agreements;
EIPMC, and ousting the plaintiff from its lawful possession and
the Subic Bay International Center, and the take-over by the defendant
10
2.4 AWARD attorney’s fees in favor of the plaintiff and against the
[P500,000.00].
Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable in the premises, are
I hereby further certify that I have not filed, nor am I aware of, any
other suit or action involving the same parties and issues before any other
court or tribunal and that I undertake to inform this Honorable Court as well
as the other court or tribunal of the existence of such a similar suit or action
within five [5] days from my discovery thereof.
VIRGILIO D. SISON
11