BY GEROME DALIPE IV
ILOILO City – This city government has asked the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to dismiss the petition filed by a group of vendors who opposed the redevelopment of Iloilo Central and Terminal markets.
The City Legal Office filed its affirmative answer asking Judge Victorino Oliveros Maniba Jr., of the RTC Branch 39, to dismiss the petition for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction.
Assistant City Legal Officer Joseph Edward Areño said the petition ought to be dismissed since the petitioners have no legal standing to file the case for being not the actual store owners at the terminal and central markets.
“They are not legitimate stall holders thus, they are not party to the case. They have no legal standing in this case,” Areño told Panay News.
In 2022, Judge Maniba denied the application for the issuance of a TRO filed by the Association of Stall Owners and Transient Vendors of Iloilo City Public Market, Inc.
The judge held the petitioners failed to establish “meritorious ground” to convince the court to issue the TRO and/or preliminary injunction in their favor.
The case stemmed from the civil petition filed by the vendors’ group, which opposed the 25-year lease agreement between SM Prime and the city government.
The petitioners asked the court to declare null and void the two resolutions passed by the Iloilo City Council for the lease agreement relative to the redevelopment of the two public markets.
The city council issued a resolution authorizing Mayor Jerry Treñas to enter into and sign a lease agreement with the prospective proponent having the best responsive proposal for the redevelopment of the Iloilo Central Market and Iloilo Terminal Market.
The second resolution approved the tender documents for the lease agreement for the redevelopment of the markets and the issuance of the same documents to interested bidders in the market project.
In denying the application for a restraining order, Judge Maniba stressed the courts should avoid issuing a writ of preliminary injunction which, in effect, would dispose of the main case without trial.
In this case, it is evident that the only ground relied upon for injunction relief is the alleged patent nullity of the ordinance, the judge said.
For his part, Assistant City Legal Officer Llonil Viterbo said the case ought to be dismissed since apart from having no legal personality, the petitioners also anchored their case on the wrong premise.
“There was no appropriation ordinance for the project, hence, no public funds were released because this is a public-private partnership,” said Viterbo.
The city lawyer questioned the legal personality of the petitioners in filing the case because the vendors’ group created their association two days before filing the case.
“When they filed the case, they were not stall owners. So what is their legal standing?” the lawyer asked./PN
