ANGELES CITY – Branch 56 Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Irin Zenaida Buan has issued a 20-day temporary res-training order (TRO) preventing the Nepomuceno family from blocking the passage leading to the Royal Garden Golf and Coun-try Club (RGGCC) in Barangay Cutcut here which reportedly earns P1-million daily on peak seasons.
Buan, in her decision penned on January 22, said: “Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the court grants a 20-day temporary restraining order (said period to include the 72-hour temporary restraining order earlier issued) from service of this order restraining the defendants or its/their duly authorized representatives from (1) setting up obstacles, road blocks, concrete wall/s on the subject property (Lot 4.0) ; (2) preventing the owners, officers, guests and employees of Royal subject property (Lot 4.0) Garden Golf and Country Club from going in and out the said establishment; and (3) preventing the use of the subject property (Lot 4.0).”
The Nepomuceno family through the Neplum Incorporated (NI) at about 3:00 a.m. on January 17 blocked the path with two concrete walls leading to the 18-hole championship golf course disrupting its operation for two days.
The some 40-hour standoff ended when Executive Judge Ma. Angelica Paras-Quiambao issued a 72-hour TRO served by Sheriff Vic Sicat on the night of January 18.
“For resolution of the court is the plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order. Per order dated January 18, 2011, the executive judge of this jurisdiction issued a 72-hour temporary restraining order enjoining the ‘defendants from continuing with their acts of dispossession of plaintiffs and granting the removal/demolition of the concrete wall on the defendants property x x x,’” it said.
Prior to the expiration of the 72-hour temporary restraining order issued, the Court conducted a summary hearing and ocular inspection of the subject property to determine the propriety of extending the 72-hour temporary restraining order earlier issued. “During the summary hearing, the plaintiffs-applicants presented the testimonies of Mr. Ruperto Cruz and Ms. Celine Cruz-Roque to support their application,” it added.
“On the other hand, the defendants did not present any evidence but moved for the conduct of an ocular inspection of the subject property which the Court granted,” said Buan who presided over the case after a court raffle.
She based her decision to grant the 20-day TRO “from the testimonies of the witnesses presented by the plaintiffs-applicants as well as the factual circumstances observed by the court during the ocular inspection conducted on the subject property, the court resolves to extend the 72-hour temporary restraining order earlier issued.”
“The Executive Judge earlier issued a 72-hour temporary restraining order which presupposes a finding that the matter is of extreme urgency and that the plaintiffs-applicants will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury unless the said order is issued. During the summary hearing and ocular inspection, the court finds that the prevailing factual circumstances justify the extension of the 72-hour temporary restraining order,” said Buan who toured the RGGCC with its owner Cruz and the latter’s lawyer, Atty. Noel Canlas, and the legal counsels of the Nepomucenos led by Councilor-lawyer Bryan Mathew Nepomuceno and Norman Dick De Guzman.
“As things stand right now, the court observed that the Royal Garden Golf and Country Club (RGGCC) is fully operational. There are clients (mostly Korean golf players) of both the golf course and the hotel,” Buan said.
“To maintain and fully operate the RGGCC, it is to be expected that the plaintiffs incur operational expenses. Plaintiffs made a prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in their verified complaint and procedural due process require that the court hear the said application,” he added.
“To disrupt the existing status quo would work grave and irreparable injury to the plaintiffs since defendants would be free to exercise what they claim to be their property rights on the subject property before the court could have the chance to hear the arguments/merit of plaintiffs application for an injunctive writ while any expense or injury (especially business expense) could no longer be recoup by plaintiffs,” Buan said on her decision.
He also said that maintaining the status quo would be for the best interest of both parties.
“Plaintiffs would be given the chance to establish the merits of their prayer for an injunctive writ in a hearing to be scheduled by the court without fear of suffering business loss or operational disruptions while the defendants would be free to exercise any propriety right over the subject property free from legal constraints if it turns out that the injunctive writ applied by plaintiffs will not issue,” Buan said.
“Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the court grants a 20-day temporary restraining order (said period to include the 72-hour temporary restraining order earlier issued) from service of this order restraining the defendants or its/their duly authorized representatives from (1) setting up obstacles, road blocks, concrete wall/s on the subject property (Lot 4.0) ; (2) preventing the owners, officers, guests and employees of Royal subject property (Lot 4.0) Garden Golf and Country Club from going in and out the said establishment; and (3) preventing the use of the subject property (Lot4.0).,” it added.
Asked for their comments, Coun. Nepomuceno sent a text message to this reporter on January 24 and said: “Wala pa sir Joey. Draft pa namin.”
Earlier, in a statement, Neplum Inc. said it has “the absolute right to secure the property and will exercise all legal means to do so.”
The property is about 800 square meters, it was learned.
Buan, in her decision penned on January 22, said: “Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the court grants a 20-day temporary restraining order (said period to include the 72-hour temporary restraining order earlier issued) from service of this order restraining the defendants or its/their duly authorized representatives from (1) setting up obstacles, road blocks, concrete wall/s on the subject property (Lot 4.0) ; (2) preventing the owners, officers, guests and employees of Royal subject property (Lot 4.0) Garden Golf and Country Club from going in and out the said establishment; and (3) preventing the use of the subject property (Lot 4.0).”
The Nepomuceno family through the Neplum Incorporated (NI) at about 3:00 a.m. on January 17 blocked the path with two concrete walls leading to the 18-hole championship golf course disrupting its operation for two days.
The some 40-hour standoff ended when Executive Judge Ma. Angelica Paras-Quiambao issued a 72-hour TRO served by Sheriff Vic Sicat on the night of January 18.
“For resolution of the court is the plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order. Per order dated January 18, 2011, the executive judge of this jurisdiction issued a 72-hour temporary restraining order enjoining the ‘defendants from continuing with their acts of dispossession of plaintiffs and granting the removal/demolition of the concrete wall on the defendants property x x x,’” it said.
Prior to the expiration of the 72-hour temporary restraining order issued, the Court conducted a summary hearing and ocular inspection of the subject property to determine the propriety of extending the 72-hour temporary restraining order earlier issued. “During the summary hearing, the plaintiffs-applicants presented the testimonies of Mr. Ruperto Cruz and Ms. Celine Cruz-Roque to support their application,” it added.
“On the other hand, the defendants did not present any evidence but moved for the conduct of an ocular inspection of the subject property which the Court granted,” said Buan who presided over the case after a court raffle.
She based her decision to grant the 20-day TRO “from the testimonies of the witnesses presented by the plaintiffs-applicants as well as the factual circumstances observed by the court during the ocular inspection conducted on the subject property, the court resolves to extend the 72-hour temporary restraining order earlier issued.”
“The Executive Judge earlier issued a 72-hour temporary restraining order which presupposes a finding that the matter is of extreme urgency and that the plaintiffs-applicants will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury unless the said order is issued. During the summary hearing and ocular inspection, the court finds that the prevailing factual circumstances justify the extension of the 72-hour temporary restraining order,” said Buan who toured the RGGCC with its owner Cruz and the latter’s lawyer, Atty. Noel Canlas, and the legal counsels of the Nepomucenos led by Councilor-lawyer Bryan Mathew Nepomuceno and Norman Dick De Guzman.
“As things stand right now, the court observed that the Royal Garden Golf and Country Club (RGGCC) is fully operational. There are clients (mostly Korean golf players) of both the golf course and the hotel,” Buan said.
“To maintain and fully operate the RGGCC, it is to be expected that the plaintiffs incur operational expenses. Plaintiffs made a prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in their verified complaint and procedural due process require that the court hear the said application,” he added.
“To disrupt the existing status quo would work grave and irreparable injury to the plaintiffs since defendants would be free to exercise what they claim to be their property rights on the subject property before the court could have the chance to hear the arguments/merit of plaintiffs application for an injunctive writ while any expense or injury (especially business expense) could no longer be recoup by plaintiffs,” Buan said on her decision.
He also said that maintaining the status quo would be for the best interest of both parties.
“Plaintiffs would be given the chance to establish the merits of their prayer for an injunctive writ in a hearing to be scheduled by the court without fear of suffering business loss or operational disruptions while the defendants would be free to exercise any propriety right over the subject property free from legal constraints if it turns out that the injunctive writ applied by plaintiffs will not issue,” Buan said.
“Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the court grants a 20-day temporary restraining order (said period to include the 72-hour temporary restraining order earlier issued) from service of this order restraining the defendants or its/their duly authorized representatives from (1) setting up obstacles, road blocks, concrete wall/s on the subject property (Lot 4.0) ; (2) preventing the owners, officers, guests and employees of Royal subject property (Lot 4.0) Garden Golf and Country Club from going in and out the said establishment; and (3) preventing the use of the subject property (Lot4.0).,” it added.
Asked for their comments, Coun. Nepomuceno sent a text message to this reporter on January 24 and said: “Wala pa sir Joey. Draft pa namin.”
Earlier, in a statement, Neplum Inc. said it has “the absolute right to secure the property and will exercise all legal means to do so.”
The property is about 800 square meters, it was learned.
