RTC voids exclusive right for wharf use
SUBIC BAY FREEPORT — Judge Ramon Caguioa of Branch 74 of the Regional Trial Court in Olongapo City nullified the exclusive rights for the use of the Boton wharf here.
In a three-page decision, he stated that "the exclusive rights granted to the Subic Seaport Terminal Inc. (SSTI) amounted to a combination in restraint of trade or unfair competition because there is no public interest enhanced by reason of such exclusivity."
Caguioa also stated that the existence of the private arrangement resulting in the restraint in trade, such as that fostered by the subject exclusivity clause in the lease agreement between the Subic Bay Metropolitian Authority (SBMA) and SSTI, negates the very essence of the Freeport zone which was principally created to promote the free flow of goods.
Meanwhile, cargo handlers using the port of Subic lauded SBMA for upholding the court’s decision junking the exclusivity of the use of the Boton wharf, thereby allowing free enterprise here.
SBMA Administrator Armand C. Arreza said that the Boton wharf, which was designated for cargo handling and unloading of fertilizers from cargo ships, was exclusively used by SSTI.
"There used to be an existing contract between SBMA and SSTI giving the latter an exclusive use of the Boton wharf for unloading fertilizers," Arreza said.
Lawyer Von Rodriguez, officerincharge of SBMA legal department, said the court’s decision arose from a complaint filed by JT Cargo Handling and Port Services which questioned the validity of the exclusive right awarded to the SSTI.
JT Cargo filed the complaint with the RTC in Olongapo City after the SSTI rejected a request of JT Cargo to use of Boton wharf to unload its fertilizers. (Jonas Reyes - Manila Bulletin)
In a three-page decision, he stated that "the exclusive rights granted to the Subic Seaport Terminal Inc. (SSTI) amounted to a combination in restraint of trade or unfair competition because there is no public interest enhanced by reason of such exclusivity."
Caguioa also stated that the existence of the private arrangement resulting in the restraint in trade, such as that fostered by the subject exclusivity clause in the lease agreement between the Subic Bay Metropolitian Authority (SBMA) and SSTI, negates the very essence of the Freeport zone which was principally created to promote the free flow of goods.
Meanwhile, cargo handlers using the port of Subic lauded SBMA for upholding the court’s decision junking the exclusivity of the use of the Boton wharf, thereby allowing free enterprise here.
SBMA Administrator Armand C. Arreza said that the Boton wharf, which was designated for cargo handling and unloading of fertilizers from cargo ships, was exclusively used by SSTI.
"There used to be an existing contract between SBMA and SSTI giving the latter an exclusive use of the Boton wharf for unloading fertilizers," Arreza said.
Lawyer Von Rodriguez, officerincharge of SBMA legal department, said the court’s decision arose from a complaint filed by JT Cargo Handling and Port Services which questioned the validity of the exclusive right awarded to the SSTI.
JT Cargo filed the complaint with the RTC in Olongapo City after the SSTI rejected a request of JT Cargo to use of Boton wharf to unload its fertilizers. (Jonas Reyes - Manila Bulletin)
Labels: arreza, caguioa, rtc, sbma, subic bay freeport, subic seaport, trial court
posted by OlongapoCity Zambales at
4:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home