SUBSCRIBE NOW SUPPORT US

Baguio court dismisses case vs Maharlika stall relocation

A Baguio City court has dismissed the civil case filed by Maharlika Livelihood Complex stall holders against the mayor’s office over the relocation of market stalls, ruling the injunction request moot after the move was completed and citing the plaintiffs’ failure to amend their complaint or appear in hearings.
A Baguio City court has dismissed the civil case filed by Maharlika Livelihood Complex stall holders against the mayor’s office over the relocation of market stalls, ruling the injunction request moot after the move was completed and citing the plaintiffs’ failure to amend their complaint or appear in hearings.
Published on

BAGUIO CITY — A Regional Trial Court in Baguio City has dismissed a civil case filed by market stall holders against the Baguio City Mayor’s Office and the administration of the Maharlika Livelihood Complex (MLC).

In an order released on 7 May, RTC Branch 79 Presiding Judge Heherson A. Casareno granted the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants.

The civil case, filed by MLC tenants, challenged a memorandum circular mandating the relocation of market stalls from the first floor of the complex to the fifth and sixth floors of the livelihood complex.

A Baguio City court has dismissed the civil case filed by Maharlika Livelihood Complex stall holders against the mayor’s office over the relocation of market stalls, ruling the injunction request moot after the move was completed and citing the plaintiffs’ failure to amend their complaint or appear in hearings.
Supreme Court clarifies rules on dismissing cases for lack of cause of action

The petitioners sought a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order to stop the relocation. They argued that the compulsory move violated their property rights and due process, claiming it would cause irreparable injury to their livelihoods.

However, the court had earlier denied the application for a temporary restraining order, finding that the legal conditions for its issuance had not been met.

The court’s decision to dismiss the case was based on both procedural and substantive grounds. During a hearing in March 2026, it was revealed that the relocation of the stalls had already been completed.

Consequently, the court found that the prayer for an injunction had become moot, as the act sought to be restrained had already occurred. The judge noted that granting an injunction under such circumstances would be a nullity because the court cannot undo what has already been consummated.

Despite the mootness of the initial request, the court had previously given the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint to pursue other legal remedies, such as damages or the annulment of the circular. The plaintiffs were given five days from 4 March to file an amended pleading. According to court records, the plaintiffs failed to file the amendment or request an extension within the allotted period.

The ruling emphasized that the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the court’s order, along with their absence during a scheduled hearing on 6 May, justified the dismissal. The court said it could not allow a case to remain active when the parties showed indifference to judicial proceedings.

As a result, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice, barring the plaintiffs from filing another lawsuit on the same grounds.

The Maharlika Livelihood Complex was established in the early 1980s as a central commercial and livelihood hub intended to provide a permanent and structured space for local entrepreneurs, artisans, and vendors displaced by fire. It has since served as a major commercial center for handicrafts, souvenirs, and local trade in Baguio City.

logo
Daily Tribune
tribune.net.ph