Major update in the ongoing dispute between media giant GMA Network, Inc. and former block timer, Television and Production Exponents, Inc. (TAPE).
A significant turn has occurred in the legal battle that has captured the attention of the entertainment and business sectors: the estafa complaint filed by GMA Network against executives of TAPE Inc. has been dismissed by the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office.
The complaint, which centered on the alleged misappropriation of advertising revenues amounting to nearly ₱38 million, was based on TAPE's supposed failure to remit funds contractually assigned to GMA Network under a 2023 Assignment Agreement. GMA had argued that the funds, instead of being turned over to them, were allegedly used by TAPE for its own operational expenses, constituting estafa through abuse of confidence.
The Core of the Legal Conflict
The heart of the dispute was whether TAPE's failure to remit the funds was a criminal act (estafa) or merely a civil liability—a breach of contract. TAPE executives, including members of the Jalosjos family who were named as respondents, consistently maintained that the obligation was a civil matter for the corporation, not a criminal liability for the individual officers.
While initial proceedings included mediation conferences aimed at a settlement—an offer by TAPE, including real property, was reportedly rejected by GMA for being insufficient to cover the network's total outstanding airtime arrears—the case ultimately proceeded to the preliminary investigation stage.
Prosecutor's Decision: A Civil Matter?
The dismissal by the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office suggests that the investigating prosecutor found insufficient probable cause to indict the TAPE executives on criminal charges of estafa. This decision aligns with the defense's position that the non-remittance of funds was a corporate contractual dispute, and therefore should be resolved in a civil court, not a criminal one.
The dismissal is a major legal win for TAPE Inc. and its officers.
For GMA Network, the decision means they will need to recalibrate their legal strategy to recover the disputed advertising revenues, potentially focusing entirely on a civil suit.
No comments:
Post a Comment