Okada retains control of casino-hotel, but gets a scolding from SC

The Supreme Court (SC) upheld a status quo order in April that was used by Japanese gaming tycoon Kazuo Okada to regain physical control of the $2-billion Okada Manila integrated hotel and casino, but directed the Court of Appeals (CA) to gather more evidence of ownership amid conflicting claims from the ousted board controlled by his estranged family.

The high court, in a resolution last Aug. 10, took the opportunity however to warn the parties of the limits of the status quo ante order (SQAO), which directs petitioners and respondents to go back to a previously existing state of affairs.

Clear order

The order “must be implemented strictly based on the language of the order and in the context of the nature of an SQAO, i.e., to restore the parties to the last, actual, peaceable and uncontested state of things that preceded the controversy,” it said, adding that “disruption is never the intent of the SQAO.”

On May 31, two months after the issuance of the SQAO, a group led by an Okada ally, Filipino tycoon Antonio “Tonyboy” Cojuangco, allegedly stormed Okada Manila and regained control of the gaming complex while forcibly removing executives of Tiger Resort Leisure and Entertainment Inc. (TRLEI).

“The language of the SQAO is clear. If there are acts that supposedly implement the SQAO but exceed its scope, the parties have at their disposal numerous remedies before the proper forum. The parties may avaiI of various remedies to pray for the precise relief necessary, as calibrated to specific circumstances,” it added.

The SC also asked the appellate court to gather additional evidence on ownership “and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues.”

“There are no findings of fact which can be adopted by this Court, due to the absence of a trial on the merits before the [regional trial court],” it said.

Okada regained control of the eponymous casino complex five years after he was removed from the board over accusations of misuse of corporate funds.

This was part of a wider cross-border legal battle that Okada had waged against his family for control of a sprawling business empire, which includes the Manila Bay casino and Japan-listed Universal Entertainment Corp.

Foreign judgments

TRLEI argued that Okada’s claims of control in the overseas firms that ultimately own Okada Manila had been resolved by courts in Japan and Hong Kong, the SC resolution showed.

“By invoking the decisions of the Japan courts, TRLEI would have us recognize said foreign judgments. It is settled, however, that Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments,” according to the SC.

“As such, foreign judgments must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence,” it added. The high court is not a trier of facts.

Okada’s camp said in a separate statement on Friday the group was “prepared to go to the CA to present their evidence in order to maintain the integrity of the SQAO and to further strengthen his position as controlling entity of Okada Manila.”