Another 20 days for TRO on Toledo City’s budget

CEBU, Philippines - The Regional Trial Court has extended up to 20 days the temporary restraining order to stop the disbursement of the P619 million annual budget of  Toledo City reportedly passed by only three councilors during a special session.

 RTC Executive Judge Hermes Montero of Branch 59 in Toledo City has issued the order on April 23 after hearing the 72-hours TRO he earlier issued on April 15.

 Montero granted the petition to extend the TRO while he denied the oral motion for reconsideration of the respondents during the said hearing.

 Montero cited Section 5 Rule 58 of the Rules of Court which provides that “the judge before whom the case is pending shall conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order shall be extended until the application for preliminary injunction can be heard.”

 The section also states that in no case shall the total period of effectivity of the temporary restraining order exceed twenty (20) days, including the original seventy-two (72) hours, provided herein.

  “Thus, the Honorable City Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Councilors, Leo Dolino, Merly Abad, and Zosimo Abellanosa, or any other persons acting under their direction, control, or on their behalves, are hereby commanded to restrain or refrain from executing the City Ordinance, known as Appropriation No. 2014-001, and disbursing funds pursuant thereto,” ordered Montero.

 Montero was earlier convinced of the need to issue a TRO on the basis of extreme urgency and necessity so as to obviate grave injustice and irreparable injury.

 City Councilors Ricardo Pepito, Antonio Borja Jr., Rogelio Caburnay, Louis Nicholas Espinosa, Helen Jill Espinosa and Edgardo Aguilar earlier filed a petition for the declaration of City Ordinance known as “Appropriation No. 2014-001” null and void, prohibition, TRO and writ of preliminary injunction against Mayor John Henry Osmeña, Vice Mayor Antonio Yapha Jr., Dolino, Abad and Abellanosa.

 They alleged that there was no quorum during the special session when the questioned ordinance was passed on March 27.

 On that same day, March 27, Osmeña approved the controversial ordinance.  (FREEMAN)