Daily Tribune'The petitioner failed to support his claims as there was no concrete evidence of any injury to be sustained. Instead, what he reiterated during his testimony is the deprivation of his right to due process, which clearly is not an element in the issuance of a TRO.'
Photo Courtesy of Province of Abra
BAGUIO CITY — The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 1 of Abra has recently denied the application of Pidigan Mayor Joseph Domino Valera for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against his suspension.
This comes after members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Abra recommended on 10 January 2025 the preventive suspension of Mayor Valera for 60 days. The officials passed a resolution for such, as cases against Valera are ongoing.
Complaints of grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a public officer, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials were filed by three employees.
They alleged that the mayor and the municipal treasurer, Apollo Palecpec, failed to release their mid-year and year-end bonuses equivalent to one month’s salary and cash gifts of P5,000.
The SP members did not suspend Palecpec because it requires a written complaint filed before the Bureau of Local Government Finance under the Department of Finance, for which there is none.
On 17 January 2025, Valera filed a Petition for Certiorari with an application for a TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The mayor submitted the petition before the court against the Abra SP, Abra Vice Governor Russel M. Bragas, and the three employees -- Arnulfo Bisares, Melvin Dumlao, and Jumel Chong, who complained against him. He argued that he was not given due process.
In an order issued this week, the court argued that a TRO will be granted only if the matter is of such extreme urgency that grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise. The court stated that the petitioner must show that there are meritorious grounds for the issuance of a TRO in his favor.
“The petitioner failed to support his claims as there was no concrete evidence of any injury to be sustained. Instead, what he reiterated during his testimony is the deprivation of his right to due process, which clearly is not an element in the issuance of a TRO,” the order read.
The court also explained that an injunctive writ is granted only to applicants with actual and substantial rights or a right in esse (a right that is clear, unmistakable, and enforceable by law).
They must prove that there is a paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. The order stated that Valera not only failed to prove the urgency of the application for a TRO but also failed to prove the possibility of grave and irreparable injury to justify such issuance.
The court then denied the application for a TRO for lack of merit.
“The court will proceed with the main case for Certiorari after the submissions of the initiatory pleadings by the parties,” read the order.
