CPA asks court: Stop city government use of Compania Maritima

CEBU, Philippines - The Cebu Ports Authority has sought a restraining order from the court to stop the Cebu City government from using the Compania Maritima property.

The CPA, represented by Office of the Solicitor General, asked Regional Trial Court Branch 10 Judge Soliver Peras to issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction against the city government pending resolution of  its petition for injunction with quieting of title.

Solicitor General Florin Hilbay argued that the Philippine government through the CPA has clear and rights over the property being the administrator and beneficial user.

“As discussed in the complaint and supported by the documents attached thereto, plaintiff Republic is entitled to the issuance of a TRO and/or a writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction, the requisites of which are the right of the plaintiff is clear and unmistakable, the invasion of right sought to be protected is material and substantial,” the CPA’s position paper read.

According to the CPA, the premises of Compania Maritima form part of the Baseport of Cebu which is considered property of public dominion owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines.

The city government earlier asked for the dismissal of the case for lack of merit.

 Lawyers Jerone Castillo and Floro Casa, Jr. alleged that the injunction with quieting of title filed by the CPA was not properly verified in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

  Hilbay, however, said such authority from the Congress need not be attached to or included in the verification.

 “The Honorable Court may take judicial notice that the authority of the CPA to represent plaintiff Republic finds ample support in R.A. 7621 (the CPA Charter), as well as in P.D. 505, E.O. 448 and P.D. 857. Through these laws, the State or plaintiff Republic, as owner of the subject property, has entrusted to the CPA the management, administration, possession and beneficial use of the subject property,” the position paper read further.

 Hilbay said that the alleged defect in the verification is not a ground for the dismissal of the complaint. He said that before the filing of the complaint, the pleading was the one which the CPA caused to be prepared and verified by its general manager, Edmund Tan.

 The defect in the non-compliance of verification does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective because the court may order its submission or correction, Hilbay claimed.  (FREEMAN)