Court denies TRO versus P250 M loan
BACOLOD CITY — Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 53 recently denied the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) being prayed for by a complainant against the P250 million loan of the city government with the Philippine Veterans Bank. Instead, the court set the hearing for the application for preliminary injunction on February 9, 2010 at 8:30 a.m.
Complainant and lawyer Rolando Villamor filed last December 21, 2009 a civil case for injunction with TRO enjoining the defendants from enforcing the loan agreement with PVB for the purchase of a relocation site and to desist from continuing to apply for any loan with any banking institution.
Earlier Villamor along with Atty. Adelaida Rendon filed a case for the issuance of TRO against Mayor Evelio Leonardia, Vice Mayor Jude Thaddeus Sayson and nine Sangguniang Panlungsod members and likewise the Philippine Veterans Bank officials to enjoin them not to enforce the loan contract.
In his 3-page order dated January 20, 2010, RTC Branch 53 Judge Pepito Gellada said that upon careful consideration of the oral arguments in the hearing held on January 13, the Court is not convinced that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the issuance of a TRO.
He said that unless the P250 million loan proceeds are released into the coffers of the government, the same remains to be the private funds of PVB. The judge said that plaintiff”s apprehension over the dissipation of public funds is premature and is at best speculative, conjectural and anticipatory.
The complainant contends that he is filing a citizen’s suit for the protection of the general public, arising from his concern that “public funds” may be wantonly wasted should the application of the loan be enforced and the so-called purchase of “relocation site” that may result in the dissipation of public funds causing irreparable injury to him and the public.
Gellada said that “it is fundamental in this jurisdiction that any party may only come to court if he has legal standing.” It is stated in the order that “Legal Standing” refers to as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. The Court ruled that the complainant is not privy to the contract between the government and the PVB.
