Pagcor reacts to hotels claims
July 30, 2006 | 12:00am
The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (Pagcor) belied the allegations of Grand Boulevard Hotel that it refused to cooperate in the appraisal of the restoration work to be done on the state-run gaming companys leased premises.
In a statement, Pagcor said it never reneged on its obligation to shoulder the restoration cost, as stipulated in its contract.
In fact, it said it nominated three appraisers as early as July 4. The appraisal was estimated to take two weeks, thus giving Pagcor sufficient time to settle the restoration cost before it vacates the leased premises by July 31.
Meanwhile, on the issue of electric bill differential, Pagcor said its contract did not stipulate that it should pay for the increase.
However, it was stipulated that if the Manila Electric Co. would impose a 10 percent increase, the parties were to evaluate if it was necessary to increase the rental, Pagcor said.
After an evaluation, Pagcor said it deemed an increase in the rental to be unnecessary due to several reasons.
For instance, Pagcor said that raising the rental by even at least 10 percent, as Grand Boulevard had demanded, would make the agreement grossly disadvantageous to the company and the government.
Raising its rental at Grand Boulevard would make it the highest among its branches in Metro Manila hotels, hardly commensurate to the facilities provided for by the hotel, Pagcor said.
"Grand Boulevard has the most basic of facilities and only allotted complimentary rooms for Pagcor," it added.
Apart from the rental, Pagcor said Grand Boulevard earned substantial income from the casino in terms of food and beverage and hotel accommodations.
Pagcor said Grand Boulevards complaint came as a surprise considering that it was amenable to keeping the status quo as it expressed to the hotels legal counsel a week before the case was filed.
Pagcor said it is prepared to file counter-claims against Grand Boulevard "for this frivolous case and for spreading malicious, unfounded allegations" against it.
In a statement, Pagcor said it never reneged on its obligation to shoulder the restoration cost, as stipulated in its contract.
In fact, it said it nominated three appraisers as early as July 4. The appraisal was estimated to take two weeks, thus giving Pagcor sufficient time to settle the restoration cost before it vacates the leased premises by July 31.
Meanwhile, on the issue of electric bill differential, Pagcor said its contract did not stipulate that it should pay for the increase.
However, it was stipulated that if the Manila Electric Co. would impose a 10 percent increase, the parties were to evaluate if it was necessary to increase the rental, Pagcor said.
After an evaluation, Pagcor said it deemed an increase in the rental to be unnecessary due to several reasons.
For instance, Pagcor said that raising the rental by even at least 10 percent, as Grand Boulevard had demanded, would make the agreement grossly disadvantageous to the company and the government.
Raising its rental at Grand Boulevard would make it the highest among its branches in Metro Manila hotels, hardly commensurate to the facilities provided for by the hotel, Pagcor said.
"Grand Boulevard has the most basic of facilities and only allotted complimentary rooms for Pagcor," it added.
Apart from the rental, Pagcor said Grand Boulevard earned substantial income from the casino in terms of food and beverage and hotel accommodations.
Pagcor said Grand Boulevards complaint came as a surprise considering that it was amenable to keeping the status quo as it expressed to the hotels legal counsel a week before the case was filed.
Pagcor said it is prepared to file counter-claims against Grand Boulevard "for this frivolous case and for spreading malicious, unfounded allegations" against it.
BrandSpace Articles
<
>
- Latest
- Trending
Trending
Latest
Trending
Latest
Recommended