SC did right by issuing TRO on Torre de Manila?
Oscar Franklin Tan’s column “SC desecrated by baseless Torre case” (Opinion, 7/27/15) was an impressive narrative and critique of what transpired at the oral arguments last July 21 on the case filed in the Supreme Court by the Knights of Rizal against DMCI’s Torre de Manila. From all angles, it seems that case is headed nowhere. Foremost of the obstacles that stood in its way was its filing directly in the Supreme Court, instead of in a trial court.
Our only problem is, why was a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court at all? TROs are generally issued where there exists a “prima facie” showing of merit in the petition, and where the petitioner is more likely to suffer “irreparable damage.” In this case, however, it just raised false hopes on the part of the petitioners and other people who wish the alleged “photobomber” taken out of the scenery! From the beginning, it should have been apparent to the justices who voted to issue the TRO that the petitioners had chosen the wrong forum for their alleged grievance. Not being a “trier of facts,” the Supreme Court “has no jurisdiction to hear witnesses and receive evidence” which can be done only in the trial courts.
By applying well-settled jurisprudence, the Supreme Court should have disposed of that petition more quickly and allowed the parties to proceed to the trial court for the ventilation of their factual issues without further delay. Prolonging the petitioners’ agony that way does not serve the cause of a “speedy administration of justice.”
Article continues after this advertisement—ROMANO MORANO MONTENEGRO,
