All that jazz and a TRO denial

...And so it came to pass that board members Raza, Monte and Nepomuceno filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court, Marinduque Branch, to declare null and void SP Resolution No. 822 that approved the request of Gov. Carrion for the re-alignment of the savings of the annual investment program 20% Development Fund of the province for the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and the first semester of 2010 involving funds for the day-care program for computer-aided insructional materials.

(Marinduque RTC, "Bulwagan ng Katarungan")

Presiding Judge Antonina M. Calderon-Magturo, of the Regional Trial Court Branch 94 in Marinduque, on June 22, 2010, issued an order denying the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) filed by petitioners Raza, Monte and Nepomuceno against Gov. Carrion, Vice-Gov. Pizzarro, Board Members delos Santos, Zoleta, Querubin, Alvarez, Iturralde and de Leon. It was denied for lack of merit.

The Order is reproduced here in full:

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 94
Boac, Marinduque

Civil case no. 10-6 for DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF RESOLUTION NO. 822, SERIES OF 2010 PASSED BY THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF THE PROVINCE OF MARINDUQUE

ELEUTERIO RAZA, JR.,
LETICIA MONTE,
ALLAN NEPOMUCENO
Petitioners

Versus

JOSE ANTONIO N. CARRION,
TOMAS N. PIZARRO
ILDEFONSO DELOS SANTOS
CESARIA ZOLETA
YOLANDO R. QUERUBIN
JOSE F. ALVAREZ
NANCY ARCA-ITURRALDE
MARK JOSEPH R. DE LEON
Defendants

ORDER

For consideration is the prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order filed by Petitioners Eleuterio R. Raza, Jr., Leticia Monte and Allan H. Nepomuceno as ancillary remedy to the principal action for the Declaration of Nullity of Resolution No. 822 Series of 2010 passed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Marinduque. After the parties were given the opportunity to ventilate their respective positions, the incident was deemed submitted for resolution.

Petitioners pray for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order to restrain further acts of the Defendants which would result to improper and unauthorized re-alignment of public funds.

To be entitled to a Temporary Restraining Order, Petitioners must show that the non-issuance of the same would result in a great or irreparable injury to them. Injury is considered “irreparable” if it is of such constant and frequent recurrence that no fair or reasonable redress can be had therefore in a court of law or where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy, that is, it is not susceptible of mathematical computation (SSC vs. Bayona et al., May 30, 1962; Regalado, J Florenz, Remedial Law Compendium, Volume I, 7th Revised Edition, p. 656 citing Ollendorf vs. Abrahamson, 38 Phil 585).

After evaluating the evidence presented by the parties, the Court opines and so holds that Petitioners failed to satisfy the above-quoted basic requirement. The evidence presented by petitioners dealt with the merits of the case. In fact, as early as when Petitioners' sole witness was called to testify, the offer of Petitioner’s counsel relates to the merits of the case. As borne out of records, the offer was: “Your Honor, I would like to offer the testimony of the witness to prove the following facts: 1) that there was indeed unauthorized and illegal session dated June 2, 2010 at 9:00 o’clock in the morning; 2) that as a result of such “illegal and invalid session”, there has been a Resolution No. 822, series of 2010 adopted in which funds were re-aligned and reprogrammed for the purchase of computers for Day Care-assisted projects. Your Honor” (page 8 of the TSN). Nonetheless, as the hearing progressed, Petitioners were given several chances over the objection of the Defendants to show that they are entitled thereto. Unfortunately, Petitioners showed none.

This Court will see and hear nothing except based on the evidence presented during the trial. Being guided by the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Edgardo F. Lopez vs. Sandiganbayan et al., (G.R. No. 103911 October 13, 1995). Where it held that down the oft trodden path in our judicial system, by common sense, tradition and the law, the judge in trying a case sees only with judicial eyes as he ought to know nothing about the facts of the case except thru which have been adduced judicially in evidence. Thus, when the case is up for trial, the judicial head is empty as to the facts involved and it is incumbent upon the litigants to the action to establish by evidence the facts upon which they rely.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby resolves to DENY the prayer for the issuance of Temporary Restraining Order for lack of merit.

Let the applications for Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction be set for hearing on June 28, 2010 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon.

SO ORDERED.
Boac, Marinduque, June 22, 2010.

(Signed)

ANTONINA M. CALDERON-MAGTURO
Presiding Judge

(Ricardo Paras, Jr.. Branch 94 in Marinduque of the 4th Judicial Region of the Regional Trial Court is known here as "Bulwagan ng Katarungan". The building is guarded by a bust of the late Chief Justice Ricardo Paras, Jr. (his tenure was from 1951 to 1961), a Marinduqueno native). His father was Ricardo G. Paras, Sr., referred to as an ilustrado, who was a delegate to the 1898 Malolos Congress that drafted the first Philippine Constitution, the first republican constitution in Asia