Mango Square asks court to reject plea to stop demolition

The owner of the property, where the controversial Mango Square complex is located, yesterday asked the court to deny the petition of nine stall owners for preliminary mandatory injunction and stop the demolition of their structures.

Lawyer Ramon Ventura, representing Ludo & Luym Development Corporation, argued that these stall owners are the ones to blame if their structures would be demolished by the city government because they themselves failed to obtain the needed permits and clearances first for their stalls.

Ventura contended that the contract between the firm's representatives and the stall owners stipulated that the latter should obtain the required permits for their respective business then furnish the firm with copies of their permits.

The structures were constructed at the parking lots of the property where a supermarket once stood but Mayor Tomas Osmeña threatened to shut the operations of the entire mall complex when he found out that these malls violated the National Building Code and the Fire Code.

The management immediately complied with the city government's order to demolish the illegal structures.

Most owners of the illegal structures agreed to demolish voluntarily their stalls after Ludo and Luym Corporation gave them financial assistance in return.

Nine of them however went to court and succeeded is getting a temporary restraining order that prevented the management and the city government from destroying their stalls pending the formal hearing of the case.

Osmeña meanwhile was satisfied with the action of the management prompting him to retain the occupancy permit of Mango Square complex. His threat of closing the establishment's operations however remains until all of the illegal stalls are removed from the lot and the sidewalks.

RTC judge Gilbert Moises directed lawyer Francisco Amit, counsel of the nine stall owners, to submit his reply to the opposition of the management over the issuance of a writ for preliminary mandatory injunction.

Some of the petitioners, however, welcomed a proposal for an amicable settlement with the management if the management pay them P350,000 each. - Rene U. Borromeo/RAE