Earlier today, December 11, 2020, the VIVA Artists Agency, Inc. (VAA) filed a lawsuit against its talent, Nadine Lustre, before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
In a statement acquired by pikapika.ph, the VAA, through their legal counsel Atty. Chino Paolo Z. Roxas, said that the lawsuit was filed “because, early this year, Nadine violated her valid and existing Agency and Management Agreement with VAA, by contracting independently with advertisers, promoters, and other third parties, in utter disregard of the exclusivity of her contract with VAA.”
VAA further said that the case seeks, among others, “to stop Nadine from continuously violating her Agency and Management Agreement with VAA and for Nadine to honor her contract.”
The statement then traced Nadine’s contract history with VAA and the firm’s effort to mould and make Nadine Lustre into one of the most sought-after artists in the entertainment industry.
Here’s the remainder of the statement: “Nadine originally entered into a 5-year contract with VAA in 2009. The contract was renewed in 2014 for another 10 years or until 30 June 2024. In 2015, said contract was extended for another 5 years, or until 29 June 2029. During this period VAA developed, built, and nurtured Nadine’s career to make her one of the most sought after artists in the entertainment industry.
“Through VAA’s efforts, Nadine’s career took-off in 2014 owing to the Viva-produced blockbuster movie ‘Diary ng Panget’ starring Nadine and James Reid, which introduced the ‘JADINE’ loveteam to the public.
“On the heels of the success of ‘Diary ng Panget’, VAA negotiated for JADINE to be featured in ABS-CBN shows to promote the loveteam, resulting in the record-breaking teleserye, ‘On The Wings of Love’, more popularly called by fans as ‘OTWOL’.
“Despite her continued success as an exclusive artist of VAA for almost a decade, Nadine still chose to violate and disregard her contract with VAA.”
Atty. Roxas further added in the statement that “Ms. Lustre should honor and respect the sanctity of contracts and that third parties are put on notice that any direct dealings with Ms. Lustre for her services as a performing artist or endorser shall be in violation of Ms. Lustre’s contract with VAA.”
The back story
It was last January 27, 2020 when Nadine Lustre shocked everyone by announcing that she has left the Viva Artists Agency, Viva Entertainment's talent arm which managed her showbiz career since 2009.
She made the announcement through a legal statement from Kapunan and Castillo Law Office sent to ABS-CBN News, saying the actress has decided to terminate her contract with Viva.
“Consistent with her rights under the Civil Code of the Philippines, specifically Article 1920, she has decided to terminate her agency contract with Viva,” it read.
Article 1920 reads that "the principal may revoke the agency at will, and compel the agent to return the document evidencing the agency."
Nadine's legal counsel added that she will be "self-managed" from that day and will remain that way "indefinitely."
“She shall directly manage her affairs from now on, and bookings and inquiries may be directly addressed to her,” Atty. Kapunan’s statement read.
On the eve of Nadine's shocking announcement, the Viva Artists Agency released their own statement saying she "remains an exclusive artist of VIVA" in contrast to her legal counsel's statement.
“Contrary to the Press Statement, Nadine remains an exclusive artist of VIVA as she has a valid and subsisting Management Contract. Under the law, Nadine cannot unilaterally withdraw from her contract with VIVA," VAA’s statement read.
The statement adds that if Nadine makes any professional engagements without Viva's consent or approval, it would constitute a "breach of contract."
"VIVA shall initiate appropriate legal action against Nadine and/or third parties that directly deal with Nadine in contravention of VIVA’s Management Contract.” it concluded.
David and Goliath analogy
The next day, Nadine's camp, answered Viva's statement, saying they are ready to take any legal action against the media company and that the “unconscionable, oppressive, and illegal Contract with Nadine (and their other artists)” is to be litigated in a “proper forum.”
The statement, which was released through ABS-CBN Entertainment reporter MJ Felipe, read:
“We welcome any legal action by Viva so their unconscionable, oppressive & illegal Contract with Nadine (and their other artists) can be litigated in the proper forum.
“It’s about time that a David strikes out a Goliath that has taken advantage of young artists in the industry for the longest time. Viva lawyers not replied to our earlier letters but chose to wait in ambush to malign Nadine & harass Third parties dealing with her in good faith. This is wrongful and malicious Contract interference by Viva actionable in law for damages.”
By January 31, in a three-page statement by the legal counsels of Viva Communications, Inc.—Reyno, Tiu, Domingo & Santos Law Offices—VAA likewise answered the statement released by Atty. Lorna Kapunan.
In the said statement, the counsels said that the issue between Viva and Nadine "is not a David vs. Goliath scenario" as Kapunan was portraying.
“This is not a David versus Goliath scenario as portrayed by Atty. Kapunan. Neither is this a situation where artists are taken advantage of by a talent management company. Rather, this matter is about respect – respect for the law, respect for contractual commitments, and good faith in professional relationships.
“The Agreement that Nadine entered into with VIVA is valid and subsisting. Under this Agreement, VIVA acts as the sole and exclusive agent and manager of Nadine to develop, advance, and promote her as a performing artist. At the time Nadine executed her first Agreement with VIVA in 2009, she was assisted by her parents. Thereafter, Nadine executed subsequent contracts with VIVA to extend their Exclusive Agency and Management Agreement until June 2029. All the elements of a valid contract are present in Nadine’s Agreement, namely: consent of the parties; object certain, which is the subject matter of the contract; and cause of the obligation which is established,” VAA’s statement read.
Viva also answered the accusations that they took advantage of their stars and their contracts are mutually beneficial.
“In performing their functions, VIVA acted in good faith and with Nadine’s welfare and best interest in mind. Thus, Atty. Kapunan’s claim that Nadine’s Agreement with VIVA is unconscionable and oppressive is unfounded. On the contrary, as discussed above, Nadine’s Agreement with VIVA is mutually beneficial. Similar to other VIVA artists and talents, Nadine built and established her career through VIVA. To be fair to VIVA, the termination of Nadine’s Agreement should be mutually agreed upon. Otherwise, they should go to court to litigate this matter.
“We likewise take exception to Atty. Kapunan’s claim that VIVA has taken advantage of young artists for the longest time. This accusation is malicious and unjustified.
"VIVA established its business on trust and fairness. The talents developed by VIVA that turned into stars in the industry are countless. VIVA’s roster of artists, past and present, is a testament to its reputation in the industry and it will not allow its goodwill to be tarnished by conjectures and motherhood statements not supported by facts."
The company also remained firm about all deals directly made to Nadine shall remain "null and void."
“At bottom, VIVA is not harassing or maligning Nadine as claimed by her lawyer. Neither is VIVA interfering with third parties in directly dealing with Nadine. Rather, VIVA is merely seeking to enforce its rights under the law and under the Agreement that Nadine knowingly entered into and benefited from.”
As of writing, Nadine has yet to respond to the three-page statement, with the issue remaining in the past.
Atty. Topacio’s POV on the matter
Also on January 31, in an event spearheaded by Viva called "Viva Vision 2020" which highlighted the media company's plans for 2020, the press interviewed Atty. Ferdinand Topacio, who was in attendance to simply congratulate Viva Chairman of the Board Vic Del Rosario, Jr.
However, he revealed that they briefly discussed Viva's issue with Nadine during their brief interaction in the event.
“Ang sabi ko sa kanya [Boss Vic], my point of view as entertainment lawyer also is that ’yong case ni Nadine Lustre mali po ’yong basis, e,” he said.
“Ang sina-cite nila is article 1920 ng Civil Code... ’yan po ay pertains to simple agency. Halimbawa ako’y nagbebenta ng alahas o nagbebenta ng bahay, ’yon po ’yong sinasabing p’wede mong i-rescind ’yong agency," he went on. "A talent agency contract is more than that. It’s more complicated because it’s vested with an interest ’no? I don’t want to be very technical ano, pero mali po talaga ’yon.”
As a lawyer, Topacio felt that Nadine was ill-advised when it came to her decision to leave the mainstream talent agency.
Speaking to the press, he said: “Ang aking problema pa po rito, I don’t know if Miss Lustre was properly advised by her lawyers...but pati po ’yong mga people who would be contracting with her— for instance, for endorsement or movie contracts— habang itong kontrata with Viva is still existing, maybe civilly liable also under article 1314 of the Civil Code because they are interfering courteously in an existing contract. E, bawal po ’yon sa batas. So, magkakaroon po ng problema talaga yan. I don’t see...It was a very wrong move legally and I think professionally also on the part of Miss Nadine Lustre.”
He pressed that one cannot simply forfeit upon entering a contract, saying it is a law between two parties. He added:
“From where I’m sitting actually, it was really a wrong move legally and maybe professionally. Well, I don’t know what impelled her to do that, what her state of mind was. But for me...well, wala tayong pakialam kay Miss Nadine, hindi ko kilala siya. I don’t know her from Adam.
“But I was disappointed because para sa akin ano—as a lawyer and as a person who enters into contract also with other people—for me a contact is sacred. Pag sinabi mo, you give your
word, you sign that... ’yon ay sagrado. ’Yong sinasabi mong oppressive, etcetera ay hindi ka naman siguro papasok sa kontrata na oppressive or ’yong lopsided. E, di sana hindi ka nalang pumirma?”
He concluded his interview with the press by agreeing with Viva in warning others who would book Nadine without going through their company.
“Well, they have to face the legal consequences of their action. And I don’t know kung ano’ng gagawin ni Boss Vic [del Rosario] but if he goes to court to stop all of these, considering na meron ngang existing contract, he would be well within his rights.” Topacio said.
From Who’s That Girl? to Gawad Urian awardee
Nadine began her film career by playing minor roles in Viva-produced films such as Petrang Kabayo , Who's That Girl? and When The Love is Gone.
She got her big break in 2014 with the Wattpad novel-based film Ang Diary Ng Panget where she was partnered with James Reid. The movie launched their now-famous pairing known as JaDine.
The success of their tandem in the 2014 film gave Nadine more pair-ups with James in more movies such as Talk Back and You're Dead, Para Sa Hopeless Romantic , Beauty and the Bestie, and This Time .
On the side, they would enjoy starring roles in the ABS-CBN television series On The Wings of Love and 'Til I Met You while staging two major concerts called JaDine In Love and Revolution: A JaDine Concert at the Araneta Coliseum.
By 2018, their pairing would garner more success with the film Never Not Love You directed by Antoinette Jadaone. Nadine's performance in the film bagged her awards from the Young Critics' Circle, Gawad Urian, and FAMAS.
Her final films with Viva include Ulan alongside Carlo Aquino and Marco Gumabao and Indak with Sam Concepcion.
YOU MAY ASLO LIKE:
LOOK: Isabelle Daza reveals she is pregnant with second baby!
Kim Chiu, may bumulong daw kaya nasambit ang “bawal lumabas” classroom analogy niya noon?
Richard Gomez writes heartwarming birthday message to his "Superwoman" Lucy Torres-Gomez
