LRTA Asks Court to Reconsider MEGATRAF Injunction Order
February 06, 2007
Jinky Jorgio
Tel. Nos. 854-04-52/854-09-84
In the said motion, the LRTA appealed for a reconsideration of the court’s order granting MEGATRAF, Inc. such relief when the lease agreement they sought to enforce “has already expired by its own terms.”
“With the expiration of the lease agreement, MEGATRAF, Inc. no longer possessed any legal right with which to stand on to enforce the said agreement,” Atty. Gregory Perez, head of the LRTA’s Legal Division, explained.
Perez also expressed his dismay over the court’s issuance of the writ without conducting any hearing in order to ascertain the veracity of the association’s allegations and the proprietary of granting its prayer for such issuance.
“Basic is the rule that no preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice,” Perez reiterated.
On July 15, 2005, the LRTA and MEGATRAF, Inc. entered into a lease agreement for the latter to set up and operate a transportation terminal at the VC Compound (vacant lot) of the LRTA Line 2, Santolan Terminal in Pasig City for a term of one year from the date the terminal was operational.
The said agreement has already expired on January 9, 2007. However, prior to its expiration, the LRTA decided to pre-terminate the agreement upon findings that MEGATRAF “willfully and deliberately violated several essential provisions of the lease agreement.”
LRTA Administrator Melquiades Robles said they discovered, following an ocular inspection by its Business Development Unit (BDU) on April 25, 2006 that MEGATRAF, Inc. was utilizing the whole area of 9,809 square meters as pay parking, stalls, stores and other terminal facilities, notwithstanding that the lease agreement only covers 2,000 square meters.
Moreover, Robles added, the said association also failed to secure the necessary permits and work clearances for the various stalls built within and outside of the leased area they have occupied, contrary to the terms and conditions of the said agreement. It was also discovered upon further investigation that the said association conducted a party, called “Chowdown Party @ LRT,” without prior authority, clearance and coordination with concerned LRTA personnel.
“It was confirmed by our BDU and Civil Security Office (CSO) personnel that MEGATRAF tapped the electric supply from the LRTA for its unauthorized holding of the party, sold alcoholic beverages within the terminal premises, thus violating the policies and regulations of the LRTA, and conducted various activities that seriously diminished the security and safety awareness of our security personnel,” Robles further explained.
Moreover, he said that MEGATRAF, Inc. also failed and refused to pay monthly rental amounting to P2, 662,000, exclusive of interest, for a period of 11 months.
MEGATRAF instituted the filing of a civil case for Injunction and Damages with Application for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction against the LRTA, accusing it of not affording them due process in automatically implementing the letter of termination.
n n n