Nadine Lustre camp declares victory after court denied Viva's claims on actress' "hard-earned money"

by Rachelle Siazon
Jun 15, 2021
Nadine Lustre's legal counsel Atty. Lorna Kapunan: "The issue of whether there still is a valid Contract between Viva and Nadine was not decided by the Court which said that this issue is subject to arbitration proceedings and not the court."
PHOTO/S: @nadine Instagram

Nagsalita na ang kampo ni Nadine Lustre tungkol sa desisyon ng Quezon City Regional Trial Court tungkol sa legal battle sa pagitan ng aktres at ng Viva Artists Agency (VAA).

Kaugnay ito ng alegasyong breach of contract ng VAA kay Nadine.

Ayon sa legal counsel ni Nadine na si Atty. Lorna Kapunan, tagumpay pa rin ang kliyente niyang protektahan ang properties at assets nito.

Ito ay matapos ibasura ng korte ang hiling ng VAA na "Writ of Attachment and Garnishment" sa properties at bank accounts ng aktres dahil sa diumano'y paglabag sa exclusive management contract nito.

Ang Writ of Preliminary Attachment and Garnishment ay isang court order kung saan pinapayagang i-seize ang property ng respondent upang maging kabayaran sa damage ng nagdedemanda.

"Court denied Viva’s claims for attachment and garnishment of Nadine’s hard-earned earnings and her Bank accounts—this is a Victory for Nadine," bungad ng abogada.

Base ito sa official statement na pinadala ni Atty. Kapunan sa PEP.ph (Philippine Entertainment Portal) noong Lunes ng gabi, Hunyo 14.

Continue reading below ↓

Aminado naman ang legal counsel ni Nadine na kailangang i-honor ng aktres ang kanyang contractual obligations sa VAA sa ngayon.

Pero hindi pa raw tapos ang isyu tungkol sa pagnanais ni Nadine na kumalas sa VAA dahil sasailalim pa sila sa arbitration proceedings.

Paliwanag ni Atty. Kapunan: "The Court, however, granted Viva a Status Quo order in consideration of rights of Third parties prior to Nadine’s termination of its Contract with Viva.

"But the issue of whether there still is a valid Contract between Viva and Nadine was not decided by the Court which said that this issue is subject to arbitration proceedings and not the court.

"Nadine has fulfilled and continues to respect the prior contracts with Third parties even after she terminated the Agreement with Viva for various material breach committed by Viva."

Inilalaban ng kampo ni Nadine na "oppressive" at panay pabor diumano sa VAA ang terms sa management contract.

Continue reading below ↓

Bukod sa "unconscionable commission fees" ng VAA, may mga insidente umanong hindi nito naproteksyunan ang interes ng aktres.

Sinasabi ring na-trap umano si Nadine sa "eternal bondage" sa VAA dahil wala raw itong sapat na kaalaman sa legalities nang pumirma ito ng kontrata.

COURT RULING on nadine's bank accounts

Nakakuha ang PEP.ph ng kopya ng resolusyon ng Quezon City Regional Trial Court sa petisyon ng Viva Artists Agency laban kay Nadine.

Pirmado ito ni Judge Jose Paneda noong June 11, 2021.

Ang petisyon ng VAA, na may titulong "Interim Measures of Protection in Aid of Arbitration," ay naglalayong panagutin si Nadine sa contractual obligations nito habang hindi pa dumudulog sa arbitration ang mga magkabilang partido ukol sa effectivity ng kontrata na sinasabi ni Nadine na kinakalasan na niya.

Isang bahagi ng reklamo ng VAA ay ang diumano'y "fraud" o panloloko ni Nadine gawa ng pagpasok sa kontrata, pagkatapos ay pag-comply dito, tapos ay ang biglang pagkalas nito sa VAA noong September 30, 2019.

Continue reading below ↓

Gayong noon lamang 2015 ay nag-renew ng kontrata si Nadine, at may validity ito hanggang June 29, 2029.

Ang paglabag daw ni Nadine sa kasunduan ay nagresulta diumano sa "irreparable injury at losses" sa VAA.

Ayon pa sa VAA, nakikipagtransaksiyon umano si Nadine sa advertisers, promoters, at third parties nang walang pahintulot ang talent agency.

Gayong ang iba raw sa mga proyektong iyon ay naisara ng VAA.

Reklamo rin nila na ang basta na lamang pag-anunsiyo ni Nadine na wala na itong kinalaman sa VAA ay nag-expose sa VAA sa posibleng demanda galing sa mga kakontrata nila para sa aktres.

Sabi ni Judge Paneda: "Petitioner also prayed that a Writ of Preliminary Attachment and Garnishment be issued against the properties of Nadine and her funds in the custody of banks or third persons in an amount as be sufficient to cover VAA's claims against her under the Revised Agency and Management Agreement."

Continue reading below ↓

Ngunit, ibinasura ng korte ang hiling na ito ng VAA na pansamantalang ma-hold ang properties at assets ni Nadine.

Wala raw kasing sapat na basehan para masabing may intensiyon si Nadine na lokohin ang VAA nang maging exclusive Viva artist ang aktres mula noong July 2009.

Ayon sa Resolusyon ng Korte, kahit paano ay may pinagsamahan pa rin si Nadine at ang VAA, at ito ay naging maayos sa loob ng mahabang panahon.

Sabi sa isang bahagi ng resolusyon (itals provided): "Contrary to the claim of the petitioner, respondent showed good faith in the performance of her obligation under their Revised Agency and Management Agreement.

"Petitioner and respondent had been into an ad agency agreement for more than a decade, during which both of them reaped the benefits of their efforts.

"For a while, the parties were in good relationship, such that they were both complying with their contractual obligations.

Continue reading below ↓

"This factual scenario belies the claim of petitioner that respondent, at the onset, had the state of mind to defraud them."

COURT RULING ON NADINE'S EXISTING CONTRACT WITH VIVA

Sa kabilang banda, iginiit ni Judge Paneda na karapatan ng VAA na pigilan si Nadine na kumalas sa VAA.

Hindi raw pwedeng tapusin ni Nadine ang kontrata nang hindi sumasailalim sa arbitration.

Sabi ni Judge Paneda: "As previously stated, the contract between the parties is the law between them.

"Obligations arising from the contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.

"The contract must bind both contracting parties; its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them.

"Respondent cannot take the law into her own hands and declare that its contract with VAA has been terminated."

"Again, without an existing court declaration-ruling that the contract was an agency coupled with interest, for instance, nor arbitral ruling as to their rights, their Revised Agency and Managament Agreement should be respected and upheld."

Continue reading below ↓

Malinaw na may "arbitration agreement" clause sa pinirmahang kontrata ni Nadine, at tanging ang arbitration committee ang makakapagsabi kung valid o hindi ang kontrata.

Sabi raw sa kontrata sa pagitan ni Nadine at VAA: "All controversies, disputes and disagreements arising from this AGREEMENT shall be settled by the decision rendered by an Arbitration Committee. The decision of the Arbitration Committee shall be final and conclusive."

Giit pa ni Judge Paneda, "Thus, the court is of the view that the status quo of the parties should be preserved, pending a subsequent arbitration proceeding or a court declaring their contract null and void, as the case may be, particularly sought for the purpose."

HOT STORIES

We are now on Quento! Download the app to enjoy more articles and videos from PEP.ph and other Summit Media websites.
Read Next
Featured
Latest Stories
Trending in Summit Media Network

Featured Searches:

Read the Story →
Nadine Lustre's legal counsel Atty. Lorna Kapunan: "The issue of whether there still is a valid Contract between Viva and Nadine was not decided by the Court which said that this issue is subject to arbitration proceedings and not the court."
PHOTO/S: @nadine Instagram
  • This article was created by . Edits have been made by the PEP.ph editors.
    Poll

    View Results
    Total Votes: 12,184
  • 50%
  • View Results