Casino issues clarified
We clarify the following issues raised by Pagcor against Legenda casinos, issues which were conveniently twisted to get them permanently closed. We fear we will find ourselves without our jobs.
1. Pagcor states that it was LIRL that offered to pay P60 million a year in lieu of the 15 percent in gross earnings it pays to Pagcor under the original contract.
Not true. It was Pagcor, which in a letter dated October 19, 1999, to LIRL that brought the issue of amending the consideration to be paid by LIRL to Pagcor from 15 percent of casino net income to P100 million annually.
2. Pagcor maintained that the RTC-Olongapo ruling stopping Pagcor from enforcing the amendment to its contract with LIRL is “unenforceable” since the decision did not attain finality.
This is not true either. The portion of the court decision stopping Pagcor from closing the Subic Legenda Casino is in the nature of an injunction, which was immediately executory.
3. Pagcor charged that LIRL officials had been padding their expenses to make it appear the company was losing.
Our study of the tripartite agreement among LIRL, SMBA and Pagcor shows that the agreement has required a qualified auditor to examine and audit the financial accounts of LIRL.
4. Pagcor says that we, as employees of LIRL, are not affected by the abrupt and continuing closure of the Subic Legenda casinos.
That is not true. From day one of the closure, we immediately felt the effects of the closure.
Legend Employees Growth Enterprise
and Development Cooperative
1. Pagcor states that it was LIRL that offered to pay P60 million a year in lieu of the 15 percent in gross earnings it pays to Pagcor under the original contract.
Not true. It was Pagcor, which in a letter dated October 19, 1999, to LIRL that brought the issue of amending the consideration to be paid by LIRL to Pagcor from 15 percent of casino net income to P100 million annually.
2. Pagcor maintained that the RTC-Olongapo ruling stopping Pagcor from enforcing the amendment to its contract with LIRL is “unenforceable” since the decision did not attain finality.
This is not true either. The portion of the court decision stopping Pagcor from closing the Subic Legenda Casino is in the nature of an injunction, which was immediately executory.
3. Pagcor charged that LIRL officials had been padding their expenses to make it appear the company was losing.
Our study of the tripartite agreement among LIRL, SMBA and Pagcor shows that the agreement has required a qualified auditor to examine and audit the financial accounts of LIRL.
4. Pagcor says that we, as employees of LIRL, are not affected by the abrupt and continuing closure of the Subic Legenda casinos.
That is not true. From day one of the closure, we immediately felt the effects of the closure.
Legend Employees Growth Enterprise
and Development Cooperative
posted by OlongapoCity Zambales at
9:07 AM
2 Comments:
where did you get your datas was it given to by mr. boon to use you and your group to cover up his anomalies wake up boys your being used and exploited reality bites you know! your present predicament was courtesy of your malaysian masters! his the master and stop being DOGS!
By
Anonymous, at 6/18/2006 9:51 PM
if you have data to counter such claims, you may send or write it in this space. calling people names simply exposes your true character, which most probably is one of those who attacked without warning people who are just quitely working for a decent living
By
Anonymous, at 6/19/2006 6:30 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home