City Hall asks court to set aside ruling on Citilink terminal

CEBU, Philippines - The Cebu City government is seeking for the reconsideration of the Regional Trial Court order allowing the One Citilink Terminal, Inc. to continue operation despite a closure order issued by the City Hall for lack of business permit.

The lawyers of the city government have asked the RTC to set aside for lack of merit the writ of preliminary injunction it earlier granted.

“Defendants respectfully pray that the Honorable Court reverse and set aside its order dated September 14, 2015, and instead issue an order denying plaintiff’s application for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary prohibitory or mandatory injunction for lack of merit,” read the motion dated October 2.

Lawyers Lyndon Basan, Carl Vincent Sasuman, and Bernard Inocentes Garcia argued that the court should not have granted the writ of preliminary injunction considering that the complainant failed to establish any of the requisites for the issuance of the injunctive order.

“Said requisites are completely absent in this case, even by looking at plaintiff’s own complaint and annexes,” they added.

According to them, the complainant “did not have any clear and unmistakable right to be protected” since what the complainant had “was merely a privilege that is burdened with the conditions of complying with ordinances, rules and regulations.”

The city government insisted for a writ of preliminary injunction to be issued, “there must be a clear showing by the complaint that there exists a right to be protected.”

The complainant presented a memorandum of agreement entered into between former mayor Tomas Osmeña and OCTI President Albert Lim wherein the city government approved and granted to the OCTI “the privilege to operate a transport terminal” to cater to south-bound vans-for-hire.

“Not only did plaintiff-applicant merely have a privilege, as opposed to a right, plaintiff-applicant’s privilege had already expired in the year 2013 or a full two years,” said the city lawyers.

The same agreement, which was signed on August 8, 2003, stated that the terminal will be operating for the next five years and renewable for another five years upon mutual agreement of both parties.

“From the time that plaintiff’s privilege expired in the year 2013, the closure order was issued only in July 2015 precisely because defendants gave plaintiff more than enough administrative due process,” the motion read.

Mayor Michael Rama ordered on July 28 to close the terminal for lack of business permit.

“The [permit] was not renewed… Having no business permit, plaintiff again does not have any right to be protected. This is based on jurisprudence,”  the City Hall lawyers added. — (FREEMAN)