Reply to Magno

We write to take exception to the glaring errors in the column of Mr. Alex Magno on Jan. 25, 2022 where he said Chailease Finance Co. Ltd. (“Chailease”), the largest leasing company in Taiwan, and a Philippine unit of Airbus, one of the world’s largest aircraft manufacturers, “collaborated” to steal a helicopter from CAPP Industries Inc. of Mr. Christopher Pastrana.

Firstly, it was Mr. Pastrana who was the one who leased the helicopter, not a Taiwanese businessman as Mr. Magno claimed. We have documents, including official Philippine government documents such as the registration with the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines, showing Chailease as the owner of the helicopter. Chailease is also the registered owner in the international registry for aircraft. In contrast, Mr. Pastrana can only show an aircraft lease agreement.

Between one person claiming ownership of a tract of land and another who has the TCT, an official government document evidencing ownership, the latter wins hands down. It is the same in this instance. The difference is that Mr. Pastrana started claiming ownership after failing to pay rent on time on several occasions; failed to pay insurance for the helicopter which, under the agreement, must always be covered; and did not follow Airbus’ maintenance manual, which posed danger to its riders and to the general public.

Chailease declared him in default on Oct. 21, 2021, terminated the lease contract, took back the unit and got a re-export permit from the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines, which is another indisputable proof that the government recognizes Chailease as the owner. Also, Philippine law bars a lessee from disputing the ownership of the lessor.

Mr. Magno wants the local courts to take jurisdiction of the case. But the lease agreement signed by Mr. Pastrana explicitly says that any dispute should be resolved in New York by New York law. That is not internationalizing the issue. That is following what the contract says.

So Mr. Pastrana ignored and violated the agreement, and instead went to the Pasay Prosecutors Office which took only seven days to decide in his favor despite Chailease submitting roughly 1,000 pages of documents, including highly technical documents relating to the transaction. Ordinarily, it would take months to vet and study such documents and arrive at a conclusion. Worse, the Pasay Prosecutor filed qualified theft against Chailease officials and sought an Interpol warrant for them.

This is baseless because qualified theft is the taking of property from the owner. In this case, the owner is Chailease, not Mr. Pastrana. But the Pasay Prosecutor said Mr. Pastrana was the owner by relying on an unsigned bill of sales, saying that piece of paper already proved his ownership “in principle.” If people claim the land of others based on this line of legal reasoning, untold chaos will reign in our country.

Mr. Pastrana actually had the option to buy the unit after five years but he had to pay the residual value of $1.2 million. He did not take this option. Mr. Pastrana’s other affiliate is also indebted to a Chailease affiliate and has failed to make payments on due date.

We hope this clarifies the errors in Mr. Magno’s column and request this be published as well so the public would know. – Jose A. Bernas, Bernas Law Offices, [email protected]