Case against CITOM lost due to “improper” move

Saying that the legal action was improper, the court dismissed the case filed by former prosecutor Rosendo Brillantes and three other men against the City Traffic Operations Management due to a technicality.

In an order, judge Estela Alma Singco said that their petition for declaratory relief is improper because records of the case show that Brillantes and his co-petitioners have suffered because of the acts allegedly committed by members of CITOM. 

This, Singco said, gives the petitioners “a complete and enforceable cause of action.”

“The petitioners have already suffered and been made to go through a ‘vexatious process’ at their own expense, including their time, effort and the required payment of P300.10.  All these give the petitioners a complete and enforceable cause of action.  The petitioners, thus, have an adequate relief available through other forms of action or proceeding, making the instant action for declaratory relief improper,” Singco said.

Brillantes, Palace of Justice administrator Henry Espinosa, prosecutor’s office administrative officer Joel Pazculado, and a certain Rustom Lapeña filed the petition against CITOM for alleged questionable implementation of traffic rules.

They asked what law regulated the move of CITOM to intercept multicabs with “unregistered” canopies and make the driver pay for the offense.  CITOM also allegedly ordered the stenciling of the vehicle’s chassis at the driver’s expense, a process that reportedly costs P300.

In the same order, Singco noted that the petitioners are not actually questioning the validity of Republic Act 4136 or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code but the acts of persons implementing the law.

Under the rules, a petition for declaratory relief is proper before the petitioner suffers any breach or damage.  However, when breach or damage is present, a petition for declaratory relief is no longer available. The aggrieved party can then file an appropriate civil action.

“A complaint for declaratory relief will not prosper if filed after a contract, statute or right has been breached or violated,” says the same jurisprudence the court had cited in dismissing the case.

In their petition, the petitioners asked the court to resolve whether or not CITOM can prevent the passage of motorists who drive multicabs with a canopy and whether or not CITOM has the legal authority to force the motorists to comply with their orders right there and then.  —  Joeberth M. Ocao/BRP