HEADLINE
Degamo granted TRO-ante by C.A.


The Court of Appeals Special Fifth Division in Manila, at the close of office hours Thursday has granted Gov. Roel Degamo a Temporary Restraining Order TRO-Ante for 60 days, setting aside the Joint Resolution of the Ombudsman dismissing Degamo for graft and grave misconduct.

A TRO-Ante from the second highest court of the land, virtually directs everyone to step aside, and restore the status quo, just like before (ante) as if there was yet no order from the Ombudsman. This would virtually put Degamo back in office until the long legal battle will last.

Technically, the TRO is to last for 60 days, then on July 12, at 2PM, the Court of Appeals will hear the case “on the propriety of the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction,” set for Oral Arguments at the Paras Hall, 2nd floor at Ma. Orosa St. Ermita Manila.

The Case is docketed as CA GR SpNo.146151 with Gov. Degamo as petitioner and the Ombudsman, the DILG and June Gaudan as respondents. The seven-page RESOLUTION was dated June 23 2016, and effective immediately.

The ponente Associate Justices are Stephen Cruz and concurred by two other associate justices Samuel Gaerlan and Ramon Paul Hernando.

The assumed governor Doc. Mark Macias will have to give way to the TRO-Ante because such is the rule of law. Macias assured that “he will not stay a minute longer” if a competent court will issue an order to revert to the status quo.

REASONS FOR TRO:

The Court of Appeals issued the following reasons for granting the TRO:

1. Degamo is indeed covered by the Aguinaldo doctrine because the Supreme Court’s abandonment of such doctrine has a prospective effect, and affects only future cases and not affecting those already pending wherein the parties relied on such doctrine;

2. “The electorate of Negros Oriental are deprived of their right to be served by the person whom they voted and installed in public office (as governor), thus the matter is urgent ; (Degamo got 313,703 votes the highest in history ever for a NegOr governor.)

3. There will be a greater irreparable damage and loss and inconvenience upon Degamo if the TRO (relief sought) should be refused as compared to defendant Ombudsman, thus “will justify the issuance of a TRO.”

4. Thus the Court of Appeals “resolved to maintain the status quo ante in this instant case.”

5. Injury to petitioner Degamo cannot be mathematically quantified “and cannot be adequately compensated in damages because what is involved is a public office which he acquired through the voice of the people who voted for him”

6. Degamo’s “dismissal would ruin his reputation and will be deprived to assume the post of governor.

7. If the TRO is refused , even the voting public of Negros Oriental would suffer the greater loss than that which is suffered by the respondents by granting the same.”


HTML Comment Box is loading comments...