SM secures restraining order against City Hall

SM Seaside City responds to Tomas Osmeña’s accusations that they violated building code regulations (CDN FILE PHOTO).

What is there for the court to prohibit in Cebu City Hall’s dealings with SM Seaside City Cebu at the South Road Properties (SRP)?

Cebu City Legal Officer Joseph Bernaldez said this in response to a complaint filed by SM Prime Holdings Inc. against Cebu City officials over their SM Seaside City Cebu mall in the SRP.

Bernaldez, who said they got a copy of the petition for mandamus and prohibition filed by SM against Mayor Tomas Osmeña, City Treasurer Tessie Camarillo and Building Official Josefa Ylanan yesterday morning, said the civil case filed by SM is “premature.”

“Nanagana man gud sila nga sirhan sila. (They are being cautious that they will be closed.) So they want that the city be prohibited from closing SM Seaside,” he said.

“But being cautious cannot be used as a reason in filing a case. That (closure) has not happened yet,” he said.

Bernaldez said they will be reviewing and studying the case for a hearing.

There will be a hearing on the case this afternoon at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 9 with Presiding Judge Alexander Acosta.
Bernaldez said they will be ready to argue on the case during today’s hearing.

In the meantime, he said the city government will respect the 72-hour Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by RTC Executive Judge Gilberto Moises in favor of SM.

Bernaldez said SM’s case is similar to the case earlier filed by Banco de Oro Unibank (BDO) over the city’s non-action on their business permits.

But in BDO’s case, it was only a petition for mandamus and there is no prohibition. The case filed by BDO is still pending in court.

They are also asking the court to compel the city government to approve BDO’s applications for business permits for their branches in the city.

There is also a status quo order preventing the city from closing BDO’s branches until March 28.

Mayor Osmeña earlier filed a case of tax fraud against the management of SM Seaside for allegedly understating their taxable properties.

The city held in abeyance the building and occupational permits of the mall and its new tenants due to alleged violation of setback guidelines.

In their petition for mandamus and prohibition, SM asked the court to extend the 72-hour TRO to 20 days afterwards or to issue a “status quo ante order” that would compel both parties to resolve their dispute.

They said they have complied with all requirements for the renewal of their business permits.