(This article is actually a follow-up article to one posted in mid 2026 by the same author. Views expressed in the article are solely those of the author and have not been verified by thefortcity.com)
How Did This Impact Resident Safety?
Eight months without a valid fire certificate. A fire-extinguisher budget reduced fromapproximately ₱1 million to ₱700,000. Only 588 of approximately 900 extinguishers initially included. Approximately ₱644,000 reportedly spent — while owners subsequently obtained quotations around 72% lower. Then came further questions about the companies involved, an expired DTI-BPS licence, relabelling, serial numbers and whether individual extinguishers can be reliably traced to servicing records.
Most remarkably, much of this was uncovered not by the Board or professional propertymanagement — it was uncovered by owners.
Which raises the question at the heart of this investigation.
Who Was Actually Managing Trion Towers?
Fire safety is not landscaping, lobby furniture or an optional building improvement. It is fundamental life-safety infrastructure.
Yet Trion Towers, a major Robinsons Land Corporation condominium development in BGCmanaged by Colliers International, has now operated for more than eight months without a valid Fire Safety Inspection Certificate (FSIC).
The deeper owners have investigated how this happened, the more serious the questions have become.
The Budget: ₱1 Million Became ₱700,000
According to information provided to owners by a director of Colliers International, previous annual budgets for servicing Trion Towers’ fire extinguishers were approximately ₱1 million. For the financial year ending 30 June 2026, however, the Board approved ₱700,000 — a reduction of approximately 30%.
The PMO subsequently advised owners that the available budget was insufficient to service all of the approximately 900 fire extinguishers throughout Trion Towers. That creates an unavoidable question: why was a life-safety budget approved that was apparently insufficient to complete the required work?
If the Board knew ₱700,000 was insufficient, why approve it? If the Board did not know, what advice was professional property management providing? Either way, owners deserve an answer.
January 2026: The Fire Certificate Expired
Trion Towers’ FSIC expired at the beginning of January 2026. It was not renewed. Weeks became months. Owners were apparently not proactively informed that the development in which they lived no longer had a valid FSIC.
Around 22 June, during owner enquiries into the condition and management of Trion Towers, an owner asked to see the fire certificate. Further enquiries established that it had expired months earlier. By then, Trion Towers had already been operating for approximately five months without a valid FSIC.
Why did an owner have to discover this? Where was the proactive communication from the Board and PMO? And what precisely was being done during those months to restore compliance?
Then Owners Started Inspecting the Building
Once owners discovered the FSIC problem, they started physically examining fire-safety equipment and infrastructure themselves. Owner inspections reported issues including:
● Fire extinguishers showing expired servicing information from 2025.
● Missing or inadequate evidence of routine extinguisher inspections.
● Non-functioning emergency lighting in fire stairs.
● Fire-stair doors found open or not operating as expected.
● Stairwell conditions potentially affecting the intended fire-escape environment.
● Corridor lighting failures.
● Orange protective/travel covers still fitted to sprinkler heads in multiple locations.
These were observations made by ordinary owners. That creates a fundamental management question: how were these conditions not identified and rectified earlier?
Routine inspections, maintenance systems, defect reporting, escalation and remediation are fundamental functions owners reasonably expect from professional building management. If these conditions had already been identified, where are the inspection records and what action was taken? If they had not been identified, what exactly was being inspected? Owners should
not have to become the building’s unofficial fire-safety inspectors.
The Sprinkler Question
The sprinkler issue is particularly serious. Owners found orange protective/travel covers still attached to sprinkler heads in multiple locations throughout Trion Towers. These are not decorative covers. A sprinkler is a life-safety device designed to activate automatically when exposed to sufficient heat from a fire. If a protective installation cap remains fitted over the sprinkler head, the sprinkler cannot operate as intended and is therefore ineffective as a properly functioning fire-safety device while that cap remains in place.
In simple terms: a capped sprinkler cannot provide the fire protection it was installed to provide.
There is another serious question. These appear to be covers associated with installation. If they have remained in place since construction or turnover, some could potentially have been there for many years. The oldest Trion Towers tower has been occupied for more than a decade.
Yet in responding to the BFP Notice to Comply, the PMO subsequently represented the relevant sprinkler remediation as completed. Owners then continued to identify sprinkler heads that appeared still to have protective covers attached.
That raises two very simple questions: how long have these caps been there — and how did years of inspections fail to identify them? And what does “complete” actually mean?
There should be an inventory identifying the relevant sprinkler locations, inspections, defects, remediation and verification. If the PMO says the work is complete, the records should demonstrate it. Safety compliance cannot simply be a percentage written on a report — it must be physically verifiable.
900 Fire Extinguishers — But Only 588 Initially Included
The PMO advised owners that Trion Towers required approximately 900 fire extinguishers. Yet owners were subsequently told that only 588 would initially be included in the servicing/refilling programme because of budget constraints. The reported expenditure was approximately ₱644,000.
If approximately 900 extinguishers were required, owners reasonably want to understand what happened to the other 300-plus units while only 588 were initially included. And this is where the procurement questions become particularly important.
Colliers Says Three Competitive Tenders Were Obtained
Owners were advised that competitive quotations had been obtained before the approximately ₱644,000 expenditure was approved. Owners asked to see them. Despite those requests, the supporting tender documentation had not been provided to owners when this article was prepared.
There is a simple way to resolve this: publish the three tenders. Show owners who tendered, what each company quoted, what services were included, how many extinguishers were covered, why the successful supplier was selected, and how approximately ₱644,000 represented value for money.
If a proper competitive procurement exercise occurred, the documentation should demonstrate it.
So Owners Obtained Their Own Quotations
With the procurement documentation unavailable to them, owners went into the market themselves. Individual condominium owners contacted fire-protection businesses and obtained independent quotations. Several were dramatically below the approximately ₱644,000 expenditure.
Two quotations reportedly obtained from distributors associated with the same brand represented on Trion Towers extinguishers were approximately ₱180,000.
● Reported expenditure: approximately ₱644,000.
● Owner-obtained quotations: approximately ₱180,000.
● Difference: approximately ₱464,000.
The owner quotations were approximately 72% lower than ₱644,000. Viewed from the opposite direction, ₱644,000 is approximately 3.6 times ₱180,000.
That does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing. Quotations must be compared on genuinely equivalent scope, specifications and services. But a difference of approximately ₱464,000 unquestionably deserves an explanation. What did owners miss that justified the difference?
Again, there is a simple solution: publish the tenders and let owners compare them.
Could New Extinguishers Have Cost Less?
Owners also obtained quotations indicating that approximately 600 brand-new certified fire extinguishers could potentially have been purchased for less than the approximately ₱644,000 reportedly spent servicing 588 existing units.
If those quotations are genuinely comparable, that raises an obvious procurement question: where is the value-for-money analysis?
Perhaps there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. If so, show owners.
The Fire-Extinguisher Trail Raises Even More Questions
The concerns surrounding the extinguishers go considerably further than price. When owners began investigating the companies involved, they checked publicly available records of the Department of Trade and Industry’s Bureau of Philippine Standards (DTI-BPS). Those records showed that the relevant licence associated with the company involved in supplying and/or
servicing the extinguishers had expired in 2024.
Owners raised the licence issue directly with senior PMO management. Yet the procurement subsequently proceeded involving the company whose licence status owners had specifically questioned. That deserves an explanation: why did the procurement proceed after the PMO had been alerted to the expired DTI-BPS licence?
Following the owners’ challenge, a second company became involved. The explanation subsequently provided was that this second company was the manufacturer and that the original company was its distributor. That created another obvious question: who actually manufactured these fire extinguishers?
The physical extinguishers themselves remained the same units. Owners subsequently observed extinguishers being returned carrying newer labels apparently placed over previous labels. In some cases, owners reported that the newer labels could be lifted, revealing earlier markings underneath.
The reason for this is not presently known to owners. The observation does not, by itself, establish that anything improper occurred. But when dealing with life-safety equipment, it raises legitimate questions about identity, traceability, servicing history and chain of custody.
Show Us the Serial Numbers
A fire extinguisher is not simply a red cylinder hanging on a wall. It is a life-safety device. There should therefore be a documentary trail capable of connecting the physical extinguisher in the building with its manufacturer, supplier and servicing history.
Yet owners examining extinguishers around Trion Towers have reported being unable to identify serial numbers that would allow individual units to be readily reconciled against manufacturing and servicing records. If another approved unique-identification system is being used, the PMO should identify it and produce the corresponding register.
For every extinguisher, owners should be able to establish: location → manufacturer → serial number/unique identifier → supplier → servicing/refilling company → service date → status.
Who manufactured it? Who supplied it? Who serviced or refilled it? When? Was the company performing the relevant work appropriately authorised at that time? What servicing record corresponds to that individual extinguisher? Why were newer labels apparently placed over earlier labels? Who authorised that relabelling?
The concerns surrounding the extinguishers have now been raised directly with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) for examination. That distinction is important. Owners are not declaring that the extinguishers are illegitimate. Owners have raised concerns with the appropriate regulator and are asking management to produce the evidence capable of resolving them.
If the records exist, show us. And if approximately 900 extinguishers cannot be individually reconciled against an equipment register, owners are entitled to ask how exactly these life-safety devices are being tracked.
Were All 588 Actually Serviced?
The programme was described to owners as covering 588 extinguishers. That should be straightforward to audit:
● Were all 588 collected?
● Were all 588 serviced or refilled?
● Were all 588 returned?
● Can each one be individually identified?
● Where is each one now?
● What happened to the remaining 300-plus extinguishers?
Owners paid for this work. They should be able to establish precisely what they received.
The Competence Test
Forget personalities. Forget owner politics. Judge what happened by the outcomes.
● Did the FSIC expire? — Yes.
● Has Trion Towers subsequently operated for more than eight months without a valid
FSIC? — Yes.
● Did owners discover the certificate problem themselves? — According to the owner
chronology, yes.
● Did owners subsequently report multiple apparent fire-safety deficiencies? — Yes.
● Were owners told only 588 of approximately 900 extinguishers were initially included? —
Yes.
● Was approximately ₱644,000 reportedly committed to that work? — Yes.
● Did owners subsequently obtain substantially cheaper quotations? — Yes.
● Have owners been shown the three competitive tenders management says were
obtained? — Not at the time this article was prepared, despite requests.
Strip away personalities and arguments. These outcomes raise legitimate questions about management competence, Board oversight, procurement discipline, transparency and accountability.
“46 Years of Proven Reliability”
Robinsons Land Corporation has marketed itself using the words “46 years of proven reliability.” Reliability should ultimately be judged by outcomes.
A major residential development operating for more than eight months without a valid FSIC, while owners themselves investigate extinguishers, sprinklers, emergency lighting, fire doors, procurement and maintenance, is difficult to reconcile with that promise.
Owners are not asking for marketing slogans. They are asking for evidence.
Seven Questions That Require Answers
1. Why was the extinguisher budget reduced from approximately ₱1 million to ₱700,000, and was the Board advised that the reduced amount would be insufficient?
2. Why was the FSIC allowed to expire, what action was taken following expiry, and why weren’t owners proactively informed?
3. Why were only 588 of approximately 900 extinguishers initially included in the servicing programme?
4. Where are the three competitive tenders supporting the approximately ₱644,000 expenditure,
and why were individual owners able to obtain apparently comparable quotations around 72% lower?
5. Where is the complete extinguisher register identifying the manufacturer, serial number or unique identifier, physical location, servicing provider and servicing history of each unit?
6. Why did owner inspections identify apparent deficiencies involving sprinklers, emergency lighting, fire doors and extinguishers, and what do the PMO’s previous routine inspection records show?
7. What are the Board and Colliers now changing to ensure this situation cannot happen again?
These are not unreasonable demands. They are basic questions of safety, governance and accountability.
The Bottom Line
Buildings develop faults. Equipment needs replacing. Budgets sometimes need increasing. Mistakes happen. But owners have every right to expect those problems to be identified, reported, funded and fixed.
Instead, owners have inspected the building, photographed apparent defects, obtained competing quotations, investigated suppliers and raised concerns with regulators. Now the Board and professional property managers responsible for Trion Towers need to do something much simpler: show us the evidence.
● Show owners the inspection records.
● Show us the three tenders.
● Show us the extinguisher register.
● Show us the serial numbers or other unique identifiers.
● Show us who serviced each extinguisher.
● Show us that every required extinguisher is accounted for.
● Show us the sprinkler inspection and remediation records.
If everything has been properly managed, those records should demonstrate it. If mistakes have been made, acknowledge them and fix them.
Because after more than eight months without a valid FSIC, owners do not need another promise that everything will be resolved “soon.” They need a safe building, a valid fire certificate, and evidence that the systems designed to protect them actually work.
——
About This Article
This article is based on communications provided to owners, statements made by PMO/management representatives, owner inspections and photographs, quotations obtained from third-party suppliers, and regulatory records reviewed by owners.
Where something has not been independently established, it has been presented as an owner observation, reported information or a question requiring an answer rather than as an established fact.
The purpose of publishing these concerns is to seek transparency, verification, accountability and remediation of matters affecting the safety and interests of Trion Towers owners and residents.
Any organisation or individual referred to in this article is invited to provide documentary corrections, explanations or responses. Where appropriate, those responses will be reflected in the record.
Author: CondoWatchPH, who is a unit owner at the Trion Towers, and a guest contributor to this website.
