Attorney Jesus Falcis recently weighed in on Nadine Lustre's ongoing case vs. Viva Artists Agency (VAA).
Falcis described the issue as resembling "slave contract" cases in South Korea.
“Alam ko napirmahan nila ‘yung kontrata nila 2015. ‘Yung unang kontrata was just for five years. 2010-2015. And nu’ng nag-renew si Nadine nu’ng 2015, hindi ko alam noon na hanggang 2029...14 years po ‘yung kontrata niya with Viva. Ang tagal.”
“So ‘yung ganu’ng exclusive contract. Depende din sa probisyon na nakalagay sa kontrata, but the length itself, parang mga slave contracts sa South Korea na 10 to 15 years din ‘yung duration or validity ng exclusive contract between the management and between the artist,” said he.
Later, he noted, “Importante din ‘to no. Ang tawag sa kontrata, exclusive management contract. So, ang una kong reaksiyon diyan, dehado na ang Viva dito agad. Kasi ‘pag sinabing exclusive management, kahit na may artistang nagbibigay ng kapangyarihan sa isang korporasyon or sa isang tao na maging exclusive manager niya, manager ka lang. Manager ka pa din. Ibig sabihin, ang boss ay ‘yung artista. Binigyan ka lang ng exclusive right to manage.”
According to Falcis, the client could always back out of the contract, whenever he or she is not anymore happy with the service that are being provided.
"‘Pag hindi na happy ‘yung artista sa’yo bilang manager niya, pwedeng-pwede siya maghanap ng ibang manager. Bakit? Kasi, ‘yung welfare, ‘yung karera, 'yung career ng artista and mina-manage. So, ang pinakaimportanteng tao doon sa relationship na ‘yun between the artist and the manager, is the artist,” he pointed out.
“Kung ayaw na nu’ng manager niya, pwedeng-pwede siya maghanap ng ibang manager kung feeling niya hindi na na-mamanage ‘yung kanyang career ng maayos. Baka wala masyadong projects, baka mababa ‘yung talent fee na nakukuha. Baka wala masyadong advertisements na nabibigay. Kung mayroon mang nabibigay, nakukulangan o gusto niya pa ng iba at may nakikita siyang ibang manager or sarili niya -- kaya na niyang i-manage ang sarili niya, pwedeng-pwede siyang kumalas du’n sa manager. So ako I’m just going by du’n sa tinatawag ng Viva sa kontrata.”
Falcis reiterated he's not biased.
"Pero mukhang sa mga argumento ni Atty. Lorna Kapunan, mukhang — based dito sa arguments lang ha, wala po sa atin ‘yung kontrata, hindi ko nakikita ‘yung buong kontrata, hindi ko nabasa 'yung buong kontrata, just by going by their arguments and their own admissions — mukhang mananalo si Nadine at mukhang matatalo po ang Viva,” he said.
“So tamang-tama po si Atty. Lorna Kapunan du’n sa unang-una niyang argument. Na mukhang ang kontrata po na meron si Nadine ang Viva, is a contract of agency. Ahente ang Viva ni Nadine. Si Nadine ang principal at ang boss. So ‘pag contract of agency po ‘yan, under article 1920 of the Civil Code, pwede pong i-revoke ‘yung contract of agency nu’ng principal or nu’ng ahente. And this revocation may be unilateral at will. Kung gusto na ng principal na i-cancel ‘yung agency contract, he or she can do so anytime.”
It was January last year when the young actress announced she's no longer part of Viva and will be "self-managed."
Then in December, hashtag #IStandWithNadine trended on on Twitter after Viva filed before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (QC RTC) a lawsuit against the 27-year-old actress-singer.
https://mb.com.ph/2020/12/11/istandwithnadine-trends-online-as-viva-filed-a-lawsuit-vs-lustre/
Falcis is the Attorney whom Kris Aquino sued for cyberlibel over “malicious and defamatory statements.”
The latter is the brother of Kris' former business partner, Nicko.