Trust and commitment.
Businesses, Governments, and other institutions cannot function without adhering to these twin principles.
In particular, business is primordially established and built on trust.
Without this mutual confidence between and among contracting parties, no transaction can be consummated, no deal negotiated, and no goods or services produced and delivered.
The basic yardstick for trust is credit worthiness or the ability and willingness to pay off debt or settle obligations on a mutually agreed time or period.
Indeed, this matter of trust is about holding a man to his word.
Truly, a man’s word should be his bond.
But since a bond is nothing but a negotiable promissory note, they are sometimes prone to be dishonored or cancelled.
Like the promise of a faithful love so casually made and broken.
Relations—romantic, economic, political, diplomatic—usually turn sour in this manner.
In extreme cases, the rift could turn litigious just like in the following case:
A construction supplier filed a P68 million estafa case against Finmat International Resources Inc., one of the major contractors of Okada Philippines, before a Regional Trial Court in Pasig City.
The Golden Mile Enterprises accused Finmat owner, Reynaldo De Jesus, with office address at Caniogan, Pasig City, for allegedly failing to pay the construction materials ordered by Finmat worth P68,237,818.80.
In a 21-page complaint, Finmat said it engaged the services of Golden Mile Enterprises (GME) for the supply and application of epoxy injection project worth P2.7 million in May 2016.
Several other projects allegedly followed in the following year costing more than P60 million.
Under the contract, Finmat is to pay GME upon the project’s completion, while payment would be made once the first party, which is Okada, settled their obligation to Finmat.
GME supplied the necessary materials and performed the required works in accordance with the agreement.
The supplier claim it also performed extra works which were not provided under the contract.
However, when the project was completed, GME demanded payment to Finmat for the finished contract project, but the construction firm’s Operation manager, Engr. Robert Tayag, asked for a “little more time” to settle on the excuse that the project owner, Okada, was delayed in payment.
The GME, represented by Atty. Ferdinand Topacio, gave Finmat more time to settle their obligation since the said construction firm is highly respected and boasts to be allegedly close with the present administration.
In September 3, 2018, the GME demanded full payment for the completion of the project, but Finmat again allegedly refused to settle its obligation, on the pretext that Finmat’s collection from Okada, remained unpaid.
The goal of litigation is to settle disputes, in this case commercial. Can a settlement be just around the corner or farther down the road?
Behold God’s glory and seek His mercy.
Pause and pray, people.