Understanding a MOA

MASTER BLASTER, Mindanao Daily Mirror 7 June 2011

The weight of evidence whether or not a party is faithful to an agreement is in the provisions of a document and not on mere photographs showing the physical act of signing.

Let us put emphasis on that while some people attempt to be convincing and some people make a fool of themselves by accepting it as truth.

The Dabaw Tourism Operators Association (DabTOA) recently issued a disclaimer that the association is part of an event called Davao Youth Games by its private organizers. The reason is simple, DabTOA only wants to set things straight—they are simply not part of this event. Why? Because DabTOA said this event is not the event they agreed to co-venture with the private organizers.

That is as simple as ABC.

What is the proof of that? The document that they signed—the memorandum of agreement.

I have seen this document. I do not know with some people.

I have read the provisions too. I do not know with some people.

It was clear as ABC.

One: the document speaks of Children’s Games. Not Youth Games. Those two are not interchangeable. They are worlds apart. You are talking here of two classes of society. Two: the event dates in the document are different from this other event.

Now, an agreement is always sacred to the parties. That is why a party who amends, repeals, alters the provisions of the agreement without the knowledge and formal notice to the other party is in bad faith. Bad faith, in simple lingo, is violation of the terms of the contract. When there is bad faith, there is a presumption of a deliberate intent by one party to be unfaithful to the other party.

Parties to a contract are duty-bound to abide by its provisions faithfully and to notify the other in clear and unequivocal terms when there are changes to the pact.

In the case of DabTOA, they were not notified of the changes. It is not enough that one party if as busy as hell to be excused not to notify the other. In a corporate world, you exist with people around you like some wide-eyed, trusted liaison officers to do the notifications if you cannot do so. If you can send a spokesperson to a press conference to announce your event, it is incumbent upon you to use the same corporate mechanism to make communications. There is no excuse even if you do not know the law. That is as clear as day.

Now, to make it more absurd, DabTOA said they are now being asked to make a public apology. Reason of the organizers? There is a MOA signed by them as shown by photographs.

You know, no matter how beautiful the photographs if they are not the issue in question, it has no weight in the ocean of evidence. DabTOA said it does not question the existence of the MOA. They even made that as the premise in this case to build up their argument. The issue is the faithfulness to the provisions of the MOA.

If the MOA speaks of Juan dela Cruz and you are talking about Pedro Santos, that definitely is not the same animal you are talking about. DabTOA said they did not sign for a Youth Games. They signed for a Children’s Games. They agreed to do an event in May not in June. Those provisions of the agreement are vital in making one party decide to agree. That is essentially the ingredients to the meeting of minds.

DabTOA’s argument makes sense. DabTOA’s stand not to make a public apology also makes sense. Not to mention who must rightfully make public apologies here.

DabTOA, however, has said it will not dignify this issue. “Di na namin papatulan,” said Chato Aranda, DabTOA President.

That’s right.

It’s just too cheap.