By Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa
Variety News Staff

THE Superior Court has denied a businessman’s claims and entered a judgment in favor of the building owner over an ice cream sign dispute.
Superior Court Judge Juan T. Lizama on Monday ruled in favor of Merci Corp. and denied the claims of John C. Jones.
Lizama cancelled the lease agreement and said Merci will retain the $4,000 security deposit.
Lizama said Jones is liable to Merci Corp. for an additional $1,000 in rental payments and $500 in late fees.
Merci Corp., he added, did not breach Article 22 of the lease by failing to reinstall the sign and because Merci did not breach Article 22 of the lease, Jones cannot maintain a claim for breach of lease against Merci.
According to the judge, Jones is indebted to Merci Corp. for rent due in the amount of $5,000 plus late fees in the amount of $500 and attorney’s fees.
Lizama gave Merci Corp. 10 days from the date of his order to submit evidence of the attorney’s fees it incurred and Jones an additional five days to respond to Merci’s submission.
Jones and Merci Corp., through its representative Hideaki Sawada, entered into a lease agreement on Sept. 8, 2004.
Jones rented from Merci premises on the 1st floor ofstructure known as May Ten Building in Garapan.
The lease agreement was for two years commencing in Oct. 2004 and terminating in Oct. 2006. Upon signing the lease, Jones paid Merci a $4,000 security deposit.
At the time of the lease, a perpendicular sign to advertise a former business in the building was attached to the front of the May Ten Building near the entry door to the premises.
Jones said the sign was electrified with an electrical cord leading from inside the premises directly to the sign.
He said he planned to install plastic panel sheets on the sign, which would display a picture of a large ice cream cone and a small hotdog.
On Sept. 8, 2004, Jones began purchasing furniture and equipment to operate an ice cream parlor and negotiated with a contractor to make improvements to the place.
Jones took possession of the premises on Oct. 14, 2004. Between that date and Jan. 15, 2005, Jones made substantial improvements to the premises.
In early January, Merci hired John Guerrero, a painting contractor, to paint the exterior front of the May Ten I Building.
Guerrero removed the perpendicular sign and began painting the exterior of the building.
Guerrero told Jones he would put the sign back in its original position upon completion of the painting.
When Guerrero finished the painting in February, he did not reinstall the perpendicular sign.
Jones sent a letter to Merci requesting that the sign be reinstalled.
When Merci failed to respond to the letter, Jones made repeated telephone calls to Merci’s offices asking that the sign be reinstalled.
Merci took no action to reinstall the sign.
In a March 5, 2005 letter, Jones told Merci that if Merci did not reinstall the sign within seven days of the date of the letter, he would have a new sign installed and deduct the cost of purchasing the sign and its installation expenses from rental payments.
Merci did not respond to that letter.
On or about March 6, 2005, Jones contacted the painting contractor and a local sign maker to inquire as to where he could obtain another perpendicular sign.
Jones testified that he was unable to find anyone to make the same style of sign.
During a meeting on March 11, 2005, Sawada told Jones that the perpendicular sign was not part of his lease and that he had no right to it.
Sawada nevertheless agreed that if Jones would make a renditional drawing of the sign, and no current tenant of the building objected to the rendition, Merci would install the sign.
Jones offered to draw Sawada a picture of an ice cream cone, but Sawada stated he needed a drawing by a professional sign maker.
Jones did not submit a professional drawing to Merci. Merci did not reinstall the sign.
In April 2005, Jones sent Merci a letter stating that Merci had breached their rental agreement by not installing the sign permitting Jones to advertise his ice cream parlor business.
A June 9, 2005 notice from Merci informed Jones that the lease would be cancelled as of July 1, 2005.
Jones said he spent $30,000 to make improvements and purchase equipment to furnish and operate the ice cream parlor.
In his order, Lizama said the lease simply states that “tenant shall have the right to install and maintain a sign affixed to the exterior of the premises.”
By not including in the lease any specifications giving the lessee a right to the perpendicular sign, Jones failed to protect his expectations, Lizama stressed.
“Since Jones was able to exercise his right to install and maintain a sign through the use of a lateral sign on the front of his building, Merci’s removal of the perpendicular sign did not breach Article 22,” he said.
Under Article 22, Lizama noted, Merci had the right to remove any sign “in order to paint or to make repairs, alterations or improvements to the premises.”
He said there was no language in the lease obliging Merci to re-install or pay for the re-installation of any sign following removal.
Thus, Lizama said, Merci’s right to “improve” the appearance of the building appears to trump Jones’s right to maintain any additional signs.
Under article 14, he said, Jones was in breach of the lease by failing to pay rent when due and not making the required payment upon notice from Merci.
Merci properly terminated the lease through the notice of cancellation, Lizama said.