Friday, January 18, 2008 Marsman hopes to see end to ARB coop tiff By Stella A. Estremera
THE Marsman Drysdale Aribusiness Group is still hoping to see an end to the standoff with agrarian reform beneficiaries who are now refusing to sell their bananas to the organization, a top executive told Sun.Star Davao.
But, if the ARB cooperative will insist on selling their bananas to Davao Fruits Corporation of the Sumifru Group, another banana exporting company, then this can become a "legal battle" on contracts.
Ma. Victoria E. Sembrano, corporate services director of Marsman Drysdale, also denied claims by officers of the Marsman Individual Farming Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative (Mifarbco) that they prohibited the coop members from entering the plantation.
"They have free entry sa (to the) plantation, they can come in any time they want. But we did not allow the entry of Sumifru packaging materials. 'Yon ang sinasabi nilang bina-block naming (That's what we blocked). It's not them. Sila naman (They) can enter," Sembrano said.
Last week, Alisa Tumamao, administrative officer of Mifarbco, claimed Mr. Amado de Borja Jr., an official of Marsman-Drysdale Group, ordered that trucks of the Sumitomo Fruits Corporation (Sumifru) should not be allowed into the Mifarbco compound. The order prevented them from packing their harvested bananas and these have gone to waste.
"As far as we were concerned alive pa yung contrata," Sembrano said. "So we blocked of course 'yung attempt nila to bring in the boxes of Sumifru because they wanted to pack for (that company) already," Sembrano said.
"'Yung packinghouse nasa loob rin kasi ng area," she added.
Accelerated payment
The conflict took root from a letter the Mifarbco sent to Marsman Estate Plantation Inc. (Mepi) on June 28, 2006 and received by the group on July 3, 2006 giving notice that the coop intends to "accelerate payment" to Mepi.
Sembrano explained that the cooperative is still paying them amortization for the land and facilities that came with the land parceled out to the farmers, which the cooperatives pay in boxes of bananas. This is the "payment" that the Mifarbco wants to accelerate so as the period of payment will be shortened.
Sembrano further explained that in the marketing agreement the cooperative has with Mepi, which was signed in August 2003 by officers of Mepi and the Marsman Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative (Marbco), there is a provision for an 18-month pre-termination notice.
As a background, Mifarbco was formed sometime in December 2004 by 148 Marbco members assigned to 148 hectares of the 192.9822 hectares given to the cooperative. The agreement included a 10-year installment plan that the beneficiaries have to pay Mepi and an exclusive banana marketing agreement (Ebma).
The Ebma that accompanied the agreement was signed on September 22, 2003. Should the beneficiaries decide to end their contract with Mepi, then the agreement stipulates that they send a notice of pre-termination, the termination of which will come 18 months later.
July 3, 2006, the date the notice for accelerated payment was received, was 18 months ago and, Sembrano said, Mifarbco is claiming that this notice for "accelerated payment" is a notice for pre-termination.
Mepi, however, insists what they received was a notice of accelerated payment and not a notice of pre-termination and thus the contract that binds Mifarbco to them still holds.
Sembrano admitted they did not give their side when this was sought by Sun.Star Davao at the time the Mifarbco picketed their office in Lanang because they wanted to make sure they can make their stand clear and that they will not be misquoted amid the flurry of picketers and dissenting voices.
Alternative venture
Sembrano further said no less than the Department of Agrarian Reform provincial AR office rejected the proposed alternative venture agreement (AVA) Mifarbco submitted.
DAR Administrative Order 9, Series of 2006, requires that the Paro review any AVA covering production, contract growing/growership, marketing contract, management contract, service contract "and other emerging schemes where there are no transfer in the use and possession of the land."
Since the Mifarbco land is not yet fully paid and still within the 10-year prohibition of transfer of land, then the Paro has to affix his signature as nominal party to the AVA.
Since the Paro rejected the AVA, then it means the AVA is not valid, Sembrano said.
Tumamao said they opted to have an AVA with Sumifru because of the low price paid for by Mepi for their bananas.
"Higher buying price and the technical support provided by Sumifru from the planting of the banana to the harvesting, makit-an gyud namo na mas moayo ang among kahimtang sa Sumifru (We can clearly see that our situation is better with Sumifru)," Tumamao said.
Sembrano again denied this saying that when Mifarbco came to an agreement with Sumifru, Mifarbco even went back to them to lay down the deal they are getting with the other company.
"We said okay if that's what you want then we will give that to you at the expense of us getting lesser profit. Ayaw nila (They rejected our offer)," she said.
In the meantime, it's a waiting game. Although Sembrano said 26 members have already resumed selling to them.
"Nag-start sila nung January 8 and they say there are others coming, pero wala pang iba," she said. "Some of them are still taking the position na dapat sa Sumifru na sila. I guess it's more of a legal battle."
