The lawyer of Phuture Visions Co. Inc., in their memorandum yesterday, asked the Court to issue a temporary mandatory order/or preliminary mandatory injunction against the Bacolod City government for the closure of a bingo outlet at SM City Bacolod.

The Happy Bingo, operated by the sons of Bacolod Rep. Monico Puentevella, was padlocked by the City Legal Office on Mar. 3 for lack of a Mayor's Permit.

The closure order was implemented by Legal Officer 3 Vicente Petierre III against the bingo outlet for operating without a Mayor's Permit at SM City in Brgy. 12. It was found out that the application it had submitted to the city was for the renewal of a Mayor's Permit for another business, with address at RH Building, 26th-Lacson streets in Brgy. 5, not at SM City in Brgy. 12.

In the mandamus case it had filed against the city officials, PVI asked the Court to order the removal of the padlock installed on the bingo outlet and allow the company, represented by PVI president Claudio Puentevella, to conduct unhampered bingo operations at SM City.

Both PVI and the city government submitted yesterday their memoranda to RTC Judge Ramon Delariarte on the case filed by the petitioner against Mayor Evelio Leonardia, City Legal Officer Allan Zamora and City Planning Officer Lemuel Reynaldo.

In his memorandum, Jesus Hinlo Jr., counsel of PVI, said the respondents, particularly the City Permits and Licensing Division had not written the petitioner to inform them of any perceived defects or irregularity in their business permit, which had the word "bingo operation" typewritten over an erasure in the application form.

Hence, if there is any irregularity, as claimed by the respondents, the presumption arises that the same was authored by the party in possession of it, he said (referring to the city).

Hinlo said that if there is any defect or irregularity in the petitioner's application, the city, through employee Marissa Dejilla would not have issued and released in its favor the subject "claim slip."

Considering that the issue is but ancillary to the main case of mandamus and damages, Hinlo said, they maintain that the reason given by Zamora in his unserved "closure order" is but an after-thought that he and the Mayor have adopted in opposing the operation of the petitioners bingo business at SM - that the bingo outlet cannot be allowed to operate without a "Mayor's Certificate of No Objection."

Meanwhile, Zamora said yesterday however, that the petitioner failed to comply with three requisites before they could ask the Court to grant the application for issuance of preliminary mandatory injunction.

These are, that the invasion of the right of the complainant is material and substantial, the right of the complainant clear and unmistakable, and there is an urgent permanent necessity for the issuance of the writ to prevent serious damage, he said.

How can their right be clear when they applied for renewal of their Mayor's Permit on Jan. 10 when their Articles of Incorporation was amended on Jan. 31, and this was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission only on Feb. 27? Zamora asked.

He said the Articles of Incorporation of the company was amended so that "bingo operation" will be indicated as the primary purpose for the renewal of its Mayor's Permit. He said the word "bingo operation" was only superimposed and they claimed it was the city that tampered the application.

Zamora said they will have the document examined by experts, since what is in the duplicate is not bingo operation but "sale of services."

He said the petitioner presented two witnesses but not one had testified to prove the damages that it suffered or will continue to suffer because of the closure of the bingo operations.

Zamora said that, notwithstanding the denial of the petitioner that it is responsible for the tampering of the application for renewal of its business permit at RH Building, 26th-Labson streets, Brgy. 5, the fact still remains that the party who was benefited by such tampering or falsification is the petitioner itself.

He said it is basic in the principle of the country's criminal law that the person benefited from any falsification is presumed to be the author of such falsification.*CGS

back to top