Tuesday, February 12, 2008 Marsman destroys farmers' produce By Ben O. Tesiorna
HUNDREDS of boxes of bananas were destroyed when the Marsman Estate Plantations Inc. (Mepi) management allegedly ordered its fire truck to bombard the farmers' products with water Sunday morning.
In an interview Monday, Marsman Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative (Marbco) manager Bernardo Jalamana said about 160 boxes were destroyed as a result of the water bombardment. Damage was estimated at about P18,000.
He said the other cooperative, Marsman Individual Farmer Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative (Mifarbco), also lost more than 500 bunches that would cost about P72,000 if sold to the market.
A security guard of the Nova Security Agency, Marsman's security group, said the management ordered them to spray water at the farmers' products that were about to be transported from the Marbco packing plant to the waiting truck of the Davao Fruits Corp., parked just outside the Marsman gate.
The guard said the damage was only "minimal" as the banana boxes were covered with a trapal.
It was learned that before the water bombardment, Marbco and Marsman management already agreed before the presence of a police officer that the boxes would be passed through the fence and into the waiting truck.
Jalamana said after the policemen left the area and while they were about to transport their products, the Marsman fire truck suddenly sprayed their boxes without any provocation.
The farmers prompted to request assistance from Santo Tomas Mayor Maximo Estela and police authorities arrived around 1 p.m. Sunday to negotiate with the Marsman management.
It was agreed that the farmers' products will be allowed passage that day only, and the farmers would stop their operation on Monday until the court decides on the petition of Marsman for a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office's decision to approve the alternative venture agreement (AVA) of Marbco and Mifarbco with Davao Fruits, Marsman's rival company.
Latest reports reaching Sun.Star Davao showed that the court has already denied Marsman's petition for a TRO. The farmers said they would resume their operation Wednesday once they get a copy of the court decision.
It was learned that Mifarbco and Marbco entered into an alternative venture agreement (AVA) with the Davao Fruits in 2006. The Marsman, however, protested such move saying that the two farmer cooperatives failed to satisfy the requirements needed for them to pre-terminate their 2003 agreement with Marsman.
Marsman Drysdale corporate services director Ma. Victoria E. Sembrano, in an earlier interview, said as far as Marsman is concerned, they have an existing contract with the Marbco, consequently Mifarbco -- which was formed within Marbco.
Marsman reportedly filed a multi-million suit against Mifarbco, Marbco and DFC for breach of contract as it insists it has a valid contract for the cooperatives to continue selling produce to Marsman.
The two cooperatives claimed to have complied with the 18-month notice for the termination of their exclusive banana marketing agreement (Ebma) with Marsman.
Merbco and Mifarbco also claimed to have fully paid Marsman of the P38 million needed for their agreement to be terminated as payment for the facilities and structures Marsman had constructed within the 193-hectare area owned by the farmers.
It was learned that Marsman did not accept the payment, thus farmers were forced to consign the money to the court.
Marbco chair Gumercindo Cañas said they have decided to terminate their contract with Marsman for various reasons. Among the reasons was the shabby treatment of Marsman to the farmers, delayed payments, high aerial spraying fee, expensive fertilizers, and the low buying price of Marsman for their products.
Cañas said Marsman originally buy their bananas for only $2.30 per box, whereas DFC offered to pay them $2.75 per box.
The government awarded the 193-hectare land inside the more than 1,000-hectare banana plantation of the Marsman Company to the 193 farmer beneficiaries in 2003.
That same year, the ARB's entered into a 10-year marketing agreement with Marsman. Part of the stipulation was for any of the two parties to terminate the contract provided an 18-month notice and due payment is given to the other party.
