MANILA, Philippines – Listed property firm SM Prime Holdings Inc. yesterday reiterated before the Pasay City regional trial court that there is an existing and valid contract on the location of the proposed P1.4-billion Metro Rail Transit and Light Rail Transit (MRT-LRT) common station at the SM North EDSA mall.
Ryan San Juan , legal counsel of SM Prime, said the memorandum of agreement entered into by the company and the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) in July 2009 had no expiration date.
“There is no expiry date and if there was, SM Prime was not aware of that,†San Juan stressed.
He pointed out that SM Prime has a copy of the MOA as approved by the NEDA - Investment Coordination Committee (NEDA-ICC) that had no expiry date provision.
He added that the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and LRTA admitted before Pasay City RTC Branch 11 Judge Wilhelmina Wagan during yesterday’s hearing that it was stated in the agreement that the location of the common station was SM North EDSA mall.
San Juan pointed out that it was the fault of both the DOTC and LRTA that the contract was not executed immediately.
“Further, it could only be the DOTC/LRTA’s delay which caused the same. They cannot use their failure to timely implement the project to justify a sudden change in the location of the station. They cannot use what was caused by their own fault to throw our contract away,†the SM Prime said in a statement earlier.
He said the lower court directed the DOTC and LRTA to file an opposition on the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the relocation of the common station to Trinoma Mall of property giant Ayala Land Inc. instead of SM North EDSA mall within five days.
He added that SM Prime has three days to comment on the opposition before the judge decides on whether or not to issue a TRO.
DOTC spokesman Michael Arthur Sagcal said the regional trial court did not issue a TRO during yesterday’s hearing as both parties were given more time to file their respective pleadings.
“We are pleased that no TRO has been issued by the court,†Sagcal stressed.