Mejia opposes motion filed by MetroState Development
FULL-BLOWN TRIAL SOUGHT
THE city government of Dagupan is bent on going to trial on the controversial MetroState case.
City Legal Officer George Mejia has filed an opposition asking the court to deny the petition filed by MetroState Realty Corporation for summary judgment on the civil case for mandamus with preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.
Mejia, on behalf of defendant City Engineer Ma. Virginia Rosario, sought in his motion that the case be set for hearing for the presentation of evidence.
The case is filed before Regional Trial Court judge Rolando Mislang of Branch 42.
In his opposition, Mejia stated that the case involves question of laws and facts which are substantial in character that requires a full-blown trial.
He maintained that Dagupan City is a public corporation and the chief executive can only enter into a contract if he is duly authorized by the Sangguniang Panlungsod by virtue of a resolution.
This was Mejia’s answer to the question on whether or not the plaintiff has derived a legal right from the contract dated January 26, 2007 entered into by and between MetroState and the city of Dagupan, represented by then Mayor Benjamin Lim.
In his motion filed before the court on September 17, 2007, MetroState through its lawyer Francisco Baraan III, asked that a writ of mandamus be issued or caused to be issued ordering and commanding Rosario “to forthwith issue the Building Permit for the Project in question.”
Among others, the real estate developer asserted that in order to obtain a building permit, the applicant needs to comply with and submit the requirements mentioned in the National Building Code and once the requirements are met, the Building Official shall within 15 days from payment of the required fees by the applicant, issue a building permit.
Baraan maintained that the duty is mandatory or ministerial and, therefore, there is no room for the exercise of discretion in its performance, hence the word “shall”.
Mejia countered on Oct. 1, 2007 that the processing of a building permit requires the exercise of sound discretion and not a mere ministerial duty, adding that the processing of application by the building official is quasi-judicial in function.
He said the issue is whether or not the owner of the lot has given its consent to the proposed building to be constructed has given its consent is substantial in character.
He alleged that without the consent of the owner of the lot where the building is to be constructed, no building permit could be issued by the Building Official.
Moreover, he alleged that plaintiff did not comply with the provisions of the National Building Code and established rules and procedures by “not appealing the decision of the Building Official to the Secretary of Public Works and Highways”.—LM
Share your Comments or Reactions
Powered by Facebook Comments
