Court denies TRO against cycling body

MANILA, Philippines - The Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Quezon City recently denied the application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) filed by Armando Bautista, representing one of two cycling bodies, against PhilCycling president and Tagaytay City Mayor Abraham Tolentino and secretary-general Carlos Padilla.

The cycling group, led by Mikee Romero and Bautista, applied for the TRO to prevent the Tolentino group from holding its cycling activities. The court, however, denied the request due to lack of merit.

The cycling dispute continues to hamper preparations of the national team competing in the SEA Games in December in Laos. The Philippine Olympic Committee, which approves the composition of the various NSAs rosters for the SEAG, recognizes the Romero group while the Tolentino wing is the one recognized by the UCI, which approves those competing in UCI-sanctioned games, including the SEAG.

In denying the application for TRO, the court said, “Verily, that there are two existing cycling federations embroiled in this dispute is beyond cavil, as shown from the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) company registration of both groups.

The RTC branch 93’s decision penned by presiding Judge Ramon Paul Hernando stated: “Defendant himself appears to have been elected as president of the federation under his wing, whereas the plaintiff has had an election of its set of officers.”

“By virtue of this event, plaintiff (Bautista) may not thus enjoin the defendant from exercising the acts complained of, as evidently, he is merely carrying out those acts as chief executive officer of his cycling group, although it may have the same corporate name as the plaintiff.”  

“On both sides then, there exists an “Integrated Cycling Federation of the Philippines, Inc.,” albeit with distinct juridical personality, complete with their respective sets of Articles of Incorporation, By-laws and officers.”

“It bears significance to stress that in point of incorporation, it is defendant’s cycling federation which was incorporated ahead of the plaintiff, it having been organized in 2003 while that of the plaintiff was only a month ago,” according to the court order.

“It would not be appropriate then that a TRO be issued against the defendant precisely by virtue of his being president of his own cycling federation which bears the same name as that of the plaintiff.”

“Consequently, the plaintiff’s call for this Court to consider flag and country in resolving the TRO issue may not unfortunately be heeded, given the factual and legal milieu in this dispute.”