Contagion of the Yanson feud-3

By Modesto P. Sa-onoy

Given the incidents that occurred in the Sta. Clara Executive Village in Barangay Mandalagan, the spread of information cannot be controlled, radio waves and the cyberspace gave it the widest dissemination. News of this nature cannot be contained or quarantined.

This conflict in the SCEV is common in ordinary subdivisions but classic in exclusive ones. The manner in which this incident was handled is a study in human relationship and management of subdivisions. Foremost however, is the exhibition of the exercise of power and the need to examine the role of security guards and the authority that commands them. It would be worthwhile for future tranquillity for the SCEV Resident’s Association and other homeowners associations to study this incident.

For instance. CJ Causing had to hire his own security guards to protect their lives and their property. This indicates the uselessness of the association security agency hired to protect its residents unless they were restrained. These guards are paid by association dues which means their jurisdiction and responsibility does not end in the guardhouse but covers the safety of the residents and their properties. Are not security agencies liable for losses or damage to property from outsiders?

Another incident in this posh subdivision is the deployment of a different security agency to operate within its area of responsibility. This tolerance is an invitation to an armed conflict and would have placed the residents of Sta. Clara Executive Village in grave danger, had not the Causings and their security agency acted with prudence and restraint.

Significantly, the security guards that entered the subdivision and enforced the will of OIivia Yanson belongs to the same agency involved in the armed siege and forcible entry in the Mansilingan compound of Vallacar Transit Corporation.

Why the officials of the Village allowed this situation that exposed the subdivision and its residents to serious danger is beyond comprehension. Surely there is an explanation.

The duty of the Village officials is not just sanitation but primarily the safety of their constituents. That is the reason for security guards. But here we have a situation where subdivision officials allowed two security agencies, one backed by a police escort, to settle the private differences of their employers inside the village rather than the courts.

By the way, is there a court order for the Causing family to vacate? The incident in SCEV followed the same pattern as the siege in VTI compound. There was a corporate issue but the police forced their way into the compound without a court order except from their “big boss”.

In the present case, why did the SCEV association allow the entry of two security agencies knowing there is a conflict between the alleged owner and the occupants? The decision of the subdivision authorities placed in danger all the residents there. Had the Mansilingan-like confrontation exploded there we cannot imagine what could have happened. Here are people and houses, not buses and garages.

The association contracts with a security agency, and if I am not mistaken one of the pro-forma contract provides for exclusivity in area of responsibility. That is common sense in order to avoid any confrontation among men with weapons.

In the SCEV case, the conflict was very clear and the instructions were very explosive. Ordering one security agency not to allow the other guards in the village to secure relief or a reinforcement is a masterstroke in creating an armed confrontation, like stocking a keg of explosives by the fireplace.

Fortunately, the Causing family security guards were sober and devoid of a “gung-ho” mentality.

Was there concurrence by officials of the SCEV association? If there was collective assent then these officials ought to explain how this decision was made. The members deserve clarification so that corrective measures are made.

The main issue in this conflict is the ownership of the apartment and the validity of the contract to lease by the Causing family. They could not have occupied the place for a long time without a valid contract. The association knew of their occupancy and collected dues from them, indications that their stay is legal. The Causings deserve protection from people who had not presented a court order to vacate.

We will continue this series next week with new documents and information.