CEBU, Philippines — Saying they have complied with the requirements for business permit issuance, operators of Rico’s Lechon want the court to reverse its earlier decision to deny the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against the Cebu City government.
The firm, called 3MRS Dionson Corp., has filed a motion for reconsideration before the court.
Earlier, Regional Trial Court Branch 7 Judge James Stewart Ramon Himalaloan denied the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for lack of legal basis.
Himalaloan said although 3MRS Dionson Corp. suffered irreparable damage from the closure of its business establishment, it failed to comply with the requisite documents listed in the business application form.
In the motion, the petitioner, through lawyer Deolito Alvarez, said the court should reconsider its earlier ruling because the documents which the petitioner allegedly failed to comply with were not included in the lists of items enumerated in the notice to comply, which were required under the show cause order.
“The Honorable Court will kindly take a second hard look on the Notice to Comply and the Show Cause Order if there is one item that mentions about documents which respondents claimed required to be submitted,” read the motion.
In the notice to comply dated August 8, 2017, the list of requirements to be complied with were enumerated as follows: The occupational tax, unregistered weighing scale, late securing non posting, and non posting.
However, petitioner said on August 17, they received a report that they failed to comply the barangay clearance, sanitary/health clearance, fire safety inspection certificate, environment compliance, SEC and articles of incorporation, contract of lease, tax declaration, certificate of property holding, and other documents as may be required by the joint inspection team, which were not included in the Notice to Comply, as well as show cause order dated August 14, 2017.
“As a matter of fact, Show Cause Order expressly states to explain in writing your deficiencies enumerated in the Notice to Comply,” read the motion.
Moreover, petitioner’s camp said it had filed a renewal of the business permit and accomplished 2017 business permit application form on June 20, 2017 under permit no. 73404, together with the accompanying accomplished Business Taxes and Fees Assessment Sheet and its already for an approval for the printing of business permit.
“The uncontested evidence clearly proven evidence show that petitioner 3MRS already had an approval for the printing of Business Permit issued as shown by the annotation “OK for printing except CTC of employee 1/24/17 signature entered on the Business Taxes Assessment Sheet…that Tax Payment Certificate Year 2017 and an approval for issuance of 2017 business permit and tax payment certificate year 2017 duly issued. Undoubtedly, these incontestable pieces of evidence show that indeed petitioner has a clear and lawful right to conduct its business and to establish and enjoin the closure of its business until the merits of the case lechon business,” read the motion.
The petitioner is asking the issuance of the preliminary mandatory injunction to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard. (FREEMAN)