2013 Special Meeting: Two Amendment Proposals

2013 Special Meeting:  Two Amendment Proposals

For this meeting due to no quorum at the Annual Meeting, two amendment proposals are announced on the posted flier.  These were also proposed last year.

 

By-Laws Amendment Proposal: PLEASE VOTE NO!

The By-Laws amendment proposal is not appropriate by adding additional language not addressing the main focus. Voting needs to be in compliance with the Master Deed and national law since this is a mixed-use building. I was the one that pointed this out to the Board in early 2012. Of course, at least one Board member was surprised. Strange, I would expect Directors on the Board to read the important documents.

This wording and the procedure followed at the only meeting we have had with a quorum in 2011 made the votes illegal. But there was another action taken at that meeting which was also not in compliance that I have written about before.

The voting procedure in the By-Laws is illegal and cannot be followed anyway so wording which needs changing is not the main concern I have with this amendment proposal.

The wording "...as their voting rights are deemed assigned to the condominium corporation" is the problem. What does this mean? Votes for the Board to decide upon? There is no clear definition and meaning. Why not clearly state the meaning and intention?

Please vote NO to this amendment for Section 11. Voting.

 

 (Click here for a .pdf of the above amendment proposal.)

 

Master Deed Amendment Proposal: PLEASE VOTE NO!

This proposal is to strip away the rights of Unit Owners. Please read this amendment very carefully. I would think that the first part would be enough for anyone to immediately vote NO.

Also notice that this amendment is only for the residential areas and not the commercial areas. I wonder why? I cannot imagine why this would be so!

The first part reads, "The Condominium Corporation is hereby expressly appointed by each and every unit owner as the attorney-in-fact of said unit owner, with full power and authority to take actual possession of the delinquent unit at once..."

Do you want them to be your "attorney-in-fact"? "Delinquent unit at once"? Yes, one second after midnight you are delinquent and "actual possession" may commence. It does say "at once" does it not?

The Philippines has laws to deal with overdue payments and property. There is no need for extrajudicial anything.

Please vote NO to this amendment for Section 11 (j).

 

(Click here for a .pdf of the above amendment proposal.)

Threat for Unit Owners

Threat for Unit Owners

My advice is DO NOT GIVE A COPY OF YOUR TITLE.  The nerve after the trouble so many had getting their titles in the first place.

Under what clause in the Soho Central Condominium Corporation (SCCC) By-Laws do they make such a threat?

Under what section in the SCCC Master Deed do they make such a threat?

Under what law of the Philippines do they make such a threat?

This is the second time such a demand is made and this time by the contracted administration?  Why?  I do not believe the reasons given.  The first time three unelected Directors signed the edict - http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/08/another-marial-law-edict.html

Now two employees of Century Properties Management Inc. have signed and give reasons which the first demand did not.  Something smells rotten.

There is no requirement for a copy of this to vote.  Again, another threat.  As far as property ownership questions, that is for the Unit Owner and their own personal legal representative and the judicial system not the unelected Board or the contracted administration.

Such clever wording implying so much with the added deadline as the first had.  When will Unit Owners have control of the building?

Vote Denied Due to Water Bill

Vote Denied Due to Water Bill

I was told that a Unit Owner was denied a vote at the Annual Meeting due to not paying a water bill on time. The water bill is not dues nor an assessment. If this has taken place, please make a copy of the By-Laws and Master Deed that are available at the 4th floor administration office controlled by Century Properties Management Inc. Or, you may download a copy at this blog you will see at the right side of the page under documents. In the letter supply the exact quotes on voting from the documents and send letters to the SEC, HLURB and Justice Department and let them see what is taking place. Search media at this blog for the post with addresses.

The OK Corral or a Condominium?: Another Shotgun Killing

The OK Corral or a Condominium?:  Another Shotgun Killing

Once again, am I surprised?  No.  Now the battles between Unit Owners versus developers is getting out of control.  Who can recommend anyone buying condos in the Philippines when ownership and control are to be fought in battles within the buildings and courts?

The Big Gun has now been put away here at Soho Central.  If it comes back, we will protest.

Makati police eye 3 guards in Burgundy shooting

By Mike Frialde (philstar.com) | Updated September 6, 2013 - 4:45pm

http://www.philstar.com/nation/2013/09/06/1179491/makati-police-eye-3-guards-burgundy-shooting

MANILA, Philippines - The Makati City Police is zeroing in on three suspects in the fatal shooting of a security guard at the Burgundy Corporate Tower in Makati on Thursday afternoon.
Makati police chief Senior Superintendent Manuel Lukban said they took into custody 126 security guards hired by the old and new board of directors of the 38-story condominium.
Lukban said they have released 80 of the security guards after they were questioned and their firearms confiscated for ballistic exams.
Jimmy Lagunsad, an employee of the Sidekick security agency (not Spectrum as earlier reported), was shot dead in the chest with a shotgun during a confrontation between members of the Swag security agency guarding the building and security guards of the Sidekick and Spectrum security agencies.
The Sidekick and Spectrum agencies' guards accompanied court sheriff Leonel Roxas, who was serving the notice of temporary restraining order (TRO) on the building's old board led by Roger Serafica.
Police said the shooting which happened at around 5:30 p.m. on the driveway of the building on Gil Puyat Avenue, stemmed from a dispute between the building's old board led by Serafica and the newly elected board led by president Ramon Garcia.

The two boards are fighting for control of the 10-year-old building constructed by Burgundy Realty Corp.

On Thursday afternoon, Makati Judge Joselito Villarosa issued the TRO, which prevented Serafica and the directors of the old board from exercising their power and functions in the building.
Police said the sheriff was met with resistance by a hundred members of the Swag security agency employed by the Serafica group.
According to Lukban, the three suspects are among the 40 members of the Swag security agency now under police custody.
Lukban said that based on a discussion with lawyers from the Serafica group, the Swag security agency has agreed to identify its three guards who were armed with shotguns at the time and could have shot Lagunsad.
Lukban said that one of the three could face the charge of homicide if the investigation could prove that the shotgun he was carrying at the time of the incident was the same one that killed Lagunsad.
Should the 40 Swag security guards remain mum on what had happened, Lukban said all of them and their superiors could face the charge of murder.
"If it is homicide, it means that there was no conspiracy to kill the victim. The motive for the killing could be personal, was done without premeditation or could even be in self defense. But if it was murder, it means that the killing was planned," said Lukban.
Lukban said that once investigation is finished on the three suspects whom he did not identify, they will be subjected to a paraffin test and their guns to a ballistics examination. Lukban said these tests would show who among them had fired their guns.
According to Lukban, evidence at the crime scene points to a shootout between the groups of security guards.

---

Police probe 3 Makati guards

by Anna Liza Villas | September 7, 2013 (updated)

http://www.mb.com.ph/police-probe-3-makati-guards/

Manila, Philippines — The Makati City police yesterday said three of 46 security personnel are being considered as possible suspects in the shooting incident that led to the death of one security guard in a corporate building in Makati Thursday afternoon.
Senior Supt. Manuel Lukban, Makati City police chief, said the three unidentified personnel are under the Special Watchman Group (Swag), employed by the old board members of Burgundy Corporate Tower.
“These were only the three guards who were armed with shot guns while the rest are carrying .45 and .38 caliber pistols,” said Lukban.
The fatality, Jimmy Lagunsad, a guard of the Sidekick agency, was killed by a shotgun, Lukban said.
Police are investigating the participation of remaining security guards who were involved in the incident.
Of the 126 security guards under security agencies Sidekick, Swag, Spectrum, and Asiatec, 80 were released after questioning.
Lukban said the tension began when Leodel Roxas, a sheriff from the Makati City Regional Trial Court, with security personnel hired by the new board of officers, arrived to serve the temporary restraining order to the management of the building.
The management was the alleged center of the dispute.
An exchange of gunfire erupted between the sheriff’s security guards and security guards of Burgundy Tower, which resulted to the death of Lagunsad.
The clash developed following a longstanding dispute between the old board, led by Wilfredo Sarafica, and the newly elected board, led by president Ramon Garcia.
The two boards are fighting over the control of the building.

---

more news and video:

Makati City police has 40 suspects in Burgundy Tower shooting

 

ANC – Fri, Sep 6, 2013

http://anc.yahoo.com/news/40-security-guards-remain-under-makati-police-custody-023955311.html

Makati City police said they have in custody 40 suspects, all security guards, in the killing of another security guard in a corporate dispute between two groups for control of the Burgundy Tower along Gil Puyat Ave., Makati on Thursday.
“About 126 private security guards were taken into the custody of the police. And likewise, we did some processing of elimination among them wherein we try to eliminate from each other who among them can be considered witness and who can be considered suspect. It turned out that about 40 of them we’re able to consider them as suspects,” Makati City Police Chief Sr. Supt. Manuel Lukban said in a phone interview with ANC.
Reports said a Makati City sheriff tried to serve a temporary restraining order against the incumbent Burgundy Tower board of directors led by Wilfredo Serafica. The sheriff was accompanied by security guards from the Sidekick Security Agency.
But members of the Swag Security Agency, hired by the side of Serafica, fired shots at the sheriff and his team. A security guard from Sidekick, identified as Jimmy Lagunsad, was killed.
Lukban said the likely suspect who killed Lagunsad came from the Swag security agency.
He also said they are trying to get the affidavits of witnesses while the suspects were temporarily placed in a restricted area within the Makati police station.
“The suspects will then be investigated this morning for filing of appropriate charges within the day,” he added.
Authorities are now determining whether the case to be filed will be homicide or murder, Lukban said.

http://anc.yahoo.com/video/1-dead-shooting-burgundy-tower-025824603.html

http://anc.yahoo.com/video/makati-police-file-charges-vs-030225052.html

Sincereness?

Sincereness?

Now, is this not strange.  Today there is a letter signed by an unelected Director without their position written who with two others wrote and signed a report earlier this year stating that they would "step down when our term expires this August."  Why have they not stepped down.  When will they follow through on their signed statement?

Below this see the new letter about the elevators which is an old story I have written about and has been ignored in the past by the Board.  Yes, ignored.  Why?  I base my statement of ignored on actions and all that I have seen are useless words, verbal and written.

Above is the top of page one of the report and below is the end of the report.

For the full report please see - http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-star-chamber-and-its-residential.html

Here is the new and unimproved letter with threat of action once again.  What is of particular interest is that what was written and signed in the unseen "Undertaking" is being used to make a demand.  Hmm, shall we make demand for the three to "step down" as promised?

Oh, and the unelected expect answers to a letter.  We had given 17 letters and received a non-answer.  What goes around...

For comments which may be repeated for the current show see the first such letter - http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/07/soho-central-prison.html

 

(Click here for a .pdf of the above letter.)

2013 Annual Meeting Result: Personal Attack

2013 Annual Meeting Result:  Personal Attack
This post will deal with the meeting issues and actions.

the previous two posts are still being worked on.....

this post will be work on at the same time until finished.....



There was no quorum declared by the Secretary of the Board.  A Board member said that they had a majority of the Board for a decision on having a Special Meeting to continue for an election.  Yes, this has never been done though required by the Corporate Code as I had pointed out in past posts.

In the pack which I will scan as usual for those not present, the call for a Special Meeting is made in case there is no quorum.  I would assume that pressure we have all been putting on the Board and calls made to the media and government are beginning to work.  Imagine it took 4 years for just this simple step to be made.

This simple step which is in the Corporate Code was even made somewhat silly by their trying to look official made some small talk about a majority of the Board being present for a decision on the Special Meeting.  This once again demonstrated to me a lack of concern or knowledge of the By-Laws,  Have they ever the By-Laws?  Do they read the By-Laws and Master Deed before the meeting for preparation?  If they had the following would have been noted:

....