Skeletons in the closet of Kag. Montero bared

FOR more than years, the ownership issue of a resort in Panglao identified with Kagawad Leonila Montero remained a tightly-guarded secret. Until the political environment here simmered, then it forced to the open the lid of the tightly-kept secret. Now exposed, skeletons tumbled out in the open from the closets of Kag. Leonila and husband Francisco Montero and “their” resort.

The ownership issue of Alona Tropical Resort resurfaced in the past weeks as another of the many irritants in the on-going verbal warfare pelting the powder keg called politics in Panglao. For years now, the faction of Mayor Doloriech Dumaluan of which the lady kagawad belongs and that of Vice-Mayor Pedro Fuertes who has at least five councilors by his side has been trading live fire; everyone getting their share of pockmarks over the airlanes. But it took no less than a civil case for rescission of contract, recovery of property and payment of profits and damages filed against spouses Francisco and Leonila Montero that hit the nail right in the head over the legitimate ownership of the family-owned resort.

The case: the Monteros misrepresented through public documents that they owned then Alona Tourist Inn Beach Restaurant. The truth is, they were not. Spouses Helmut Hartl and Montero's sister Manuela, not Franciso Montero owned the resort. Probably because of the ban on foreigners owning property, then the Hartls who reside in Germany agreed for a dummy managing partner in Francisco.

In a memorandum of agreement signed by both Francisco Montero and sister Manuela on February 22, 1990 and witnessed by now councilor Nila and five others, the Monteros acknowledged they did not own the resort but the Hartls did. In the agreement, Hartls allowed Francisco to sit as resort's managing partner. The same agreement stipulated a 50-50% income and profit-sharing scheme, with Montero depositing Manuela's share bank accounts monthly. The agreement was perfect, some would say, too good to be true. Which was what it turned out in the end. It would later take a complaint filed against the Monteros to open up the can of worms. The case accused Francisco Montero of misrepresenting himself in the Mayor's permit as resort proprietor owner despite an early agreement.

But the hay that broke Hartl's back was when from the resort establishment in May of 1988 to the filing of the case in September 1993, the Monteros did not, as agreed render an accounting of the resort operations to the German couple. Not only that, the Monteros denied the Hartls the profit due them as provided in their agreement. In an apparent move to peacefully settle the issue, the Monteros confirmed in 1990 that the resort was owned by the Hartls through a public instrument. Many wondered however why the Monteros still pocketed the profits and refused to give the real owners their share. Th Hartls accordingly invested no less than P238T in initial capital, but failed to get the return of investments since 1988, thus the case. In their case against the Monteros, the Hartls wanted the court to decide in their favor and rescind the initial memorandum of agreement between Manuela and Francisco. Furthermore, they want the court to declare them as owners, order the Monteros to restore possession of resort and account to them the operations.

They also want the court to order the Monteros to pay the equivalent of 50% net profits pf the P236T resort and P90T worth of moral, attorney's fees and litigation expenses plus exemplary damages. The case however was amicably settled when in 1995, spouses Francisco and Leonila paid the Hartls the refund of P238T and P40T in fees and expenses. In their request to amicably settle the issue, the Monteros, in a receipt of final payment paid P150T through a post-dated check as the final payment of the P377T amicable settlement counter proposal on the decision penned November 28, 1995. While records as to whether the Monteros now fully own the resort after being accused of taking over their sister's business in bad faith is still vague; the court has seen their unjust attempt and has given them an adverse decision.

l