Friday, April 27, 2012

VP Binay Hails Court of Appeals Too Soon for the Globe Asiatique Case

Vice President Jejomar Binay may have hailed the Court of Appeals too soon for decision that allows the filing of syndicated estafa charges against businessman Delfin Lee and other executives of housing firm Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corp.

A blogger known only as Antony apparently published information showing that the lawyers of Lee filed on Tuesday April  24, a petition with the Supreme Court asking it to issue an ex-parte temporary restraining order (TRO) directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to cease and desist from filing the syndicated estafa case against him and the other respondents.

In the scanned copy of the petition for TRO filed at the Supreme Court, it states:
Lee’s lawyers said the CA also erred when it ruled that there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Pasig RTC Branch 167. 
They added that the CA was mistaken when it ruled that there is no prejudicial question in theMakaticivil case filed by Globe Asiatique against HMDF in relation to the first and second criminal complaints pending with the DOJ. 
They said a requisite common to the writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is that these writs may be availed of only if there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law from the acts of the respondents. 
“In the injunction case with RTC Pasig 167, not only was there a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, but respondent DOJ actually availed of the same,” they said. 
The petition for certiorari also violated Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Court which provides that “the petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the ground relied upon for the relief prayed for.” 
However, when the DOJ filed its petition for certiorari with the CA, it failed to indicate the material dates when the motion for reconsideration and its comment was filed with RTC Pasig 167. “As stated above, this is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the Petition,” Lee’s lawyers said.

No comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...