Spouses Roy S. Tan and Susana C. Tan vs. Fontana Resort and Country Club, Inc., et al.

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 04-99-6264. April 28, 2000.] SPOUSES ROY S. TAN and SUSANA C. TAN , plaintiffs , vs . FONTANA RESORT & COUNTRY CLUB, INC., and RN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION , defendants . D E C I S I O N Last December 7, 1999 at 10:00 o'clock in the morning, defendants were supposed to present their evidence. However, only counsel for petitioners appeared despite due notice on the part of counsel for defendants . It must be emphasized that defendants were twice given the opportunity to present evidence. The first time was on November 22, 1999 where counsel for defendants merely sent their messenger to ask for postponement. Upon oral motion of counsel for plaintiffs during the hearing on December 7, 1999, defendants' right to present evidence was deemed to have been waived. LLpr In the afternoon of December 7, 1999, counsel for defendants Atty. Cecile L. Andin, came to the Commission and was informed of what transpired during the hearing. On January 11, 2000, defendants filed their Motion for Reconsideration dated December 22, 1999 which cannot be considered since it is a prohibited pleading pursuant to the New Rules of Procedure of the Commission and is therefore denied due course. LLpr Hence, this decision. The instant case is for the alleged deception and misrepresentation committed by defendants when they sold membership shares to the general public at the Fontana Leisure Park located at the Clark Special Economic Zone in Pampanga. Among the supposed victims of this scam are herein plaintiffs. Plaintiffs pray, among others, that defendants jointly and severally pay the amount of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND PESOS (P387,000.00) as refund for the money which the former paid to the latter for its Fontana Leisure Park membership shares. As culled from the records of the case, the relevant facts are as follows: Plaintiffs were induced to purchase shares at the Fontana Leisure Park with promises that the park will provide its shareholders with first class leisure facilities. Plaintiffs were assured by defendants' sales agents that the park will be fully developed and functional by the first quarter of 1998 showing them brochures and pamphlets illustrating the future development of the park. Plaintiffs were informed that they are entitled to use the park's facilities and stay at a two-bedroom unit for five (5) ordinary weekdays and two (2) weekend stay per year for free. Attracted by their promises and various representations, plaintiffs purchased two (2) Class "D" shares and paid a total amount of P387,000.00 to defendants. The year 1998 has already passed and much work remains unfinished, including the main clubhouse, which is the heart of the entire Fontana Leisure Park. That plaintiffs on two (2) occasions, on October 17, 1999 and April 1, 1999, tried to make reservations for the use of the Club's facilities, and on both occasions they were denied and deprived of the use and enjoyment of the Club's facilities allegedly pursuant to some rules of the Club which were not disclosed to plaintiffs at the time they were being convinced to buy the Club's membership shares. On August 28, 1999, plaintiffs sent a letter to defendant Fontana Resort and Country Club, Inc. demanding for the return of their payment. Another letter dated October 13, 1998 was sent by plaintiffs to defendant Fontana Resort and Country Club, Inc. but despite receipt of these letters, defendants failed/refused to refund plaintiff's payments. Thus, plaintiffs instituted the present case. To prove the merits of their case, both plaintiffs testified. Ms. Esther U. Lacuna likewise testified in favor of plaintiffs. As established by the testimonies of plaintiff's witnesses, Ms. Esther U. Lacuna, a duly accredited sales agent of defendant who went to see plaintiffs for the purpose of inducing them to buy membership shares of Fontana Resort and Country Club, Inc. with promises that the park will provide its shareholders with first class leisure facilities, showing them brochures (Exhibits. "V", "V-1" and "V-2") of the future development of the park. Indeed plaintiffs bought two (2) Class "D" shares in Fontana Resort and Country Club, Inc. paying P387,000.00 to defendants as evidenced by provisional and official receipts (Exhibits "A" to "S"), and signing two (2) documents designated as Agreement to Sell and Purchase Shares of Stock(Exhibits "T" to "U-2"). cdll It is undisputed that many of the facilities promised were not completed within the specified date. Ms. Lacuna even testified that less than 50% of what was promised were actually delivered. What was really frustrating on the part of plaintiff was when they made reservations for the use of the Club's facilities on the occasion of their daughter's 18th birthday on October 17, 1998 where they were deprived of the Club's premises alleging that the two (2) weekend stay which Class "D" shareholders are entitled should be on a Saturday and on a Sunday. Since plaintiffs have already availed of one (1) weekend stay which was a Saturday, they could no longer have the second weekend stay also on a Saturday. Another occasion was when plaintiffs were again denied the use of the Club's facilities because they did not have a confirmation number although their reservation was confirmed. All these rules were never communicated to plaintiffs when they bought their membership shares. It would seem that defendants, through their officers, would make up rules as they go along. A clever ploy for defendants to hide the lack of Club facilities to accommodate the needs of their members. Defendants' failure to finish the development works at the Fontana Leisure Park within the period they promised and their failure or refusal to accommodate herein plaintiffs for a reservation on October 17, 1998 and April 1, 1999, constitute gross misrepresentation detrimental not only to the plaintiffs but to the general public as well. All these empty promises of defendants may well be part of a scheme to attract, and induce plaintiffs to buy shares because surely if defendants had told the truth about these matters, plaintiff would never have bought shares in their project in the first place. WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered directing defendants to jointly and severally pay plaintiffs: 1) The amount of P387,000.00 plus interest at the rate of 21% per annum computed from August 28, 1998 when demand was first made, until such time as payment is actually made. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MARCIANO S. BACALLA, JR. Hearing Officer