SC disapproves bypassing lower courts in Torre de Manila case

Supreme Court of the Philippines (Photo from Wiki Commons/Mike Gonzales)

MANILA – The counsel of the Knights of Rizal (KoR) was asked by the justices of the Supreme Court on Tuesday to substantiate its action of directly filing the case in the High Court and bypassing the lower courts.

The judges referred to the Knights’ petition for an order of demolition on the 49-story Torre de Manila built by DMCI Project Developers Inc. on Taft Avenue. The controversial building was regarded as an ‘eyesore’ to the Rizal monument’s sight line.

During the two-and-a-half-hour oral arguments, the lawyers were unable to answer several queries raised. At one point, acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio instructed Attorney William Jasarino to respond to the unanswered questions in their memorandum instead.

“We can remand it or dismiss it. You better address this issue in your memorandum,” Carpio said.

One issue raised was the KoR’s move of seeking resolution from the SC instead of first filing the petition in lower courts. Justice Marvic Leonen then criticized Jasarino for saying that the lower courts were ‘excruciatingly slow and inadequate.’

“This early, your honor, I will apologize for the answer I will give. It’s public knowledge that by now it would not have been resolved.

The Torre would have already been up,” Jasarino said.

“Don’t you think this is unfair, asking the court to bypass all the lower courts? Wouldn’t it have been a matter of better prudence to first go to a lower court as a trier of facts, before we intervene,” Leonen responded, asking if the Knights were seeking ‘special treatment.’

Jasarino could not further reason out but denied seeking ‘special treatment’

The High Court then converted the KoR’s petition from an injunction to a mandamus, while the counsel referred to Torre de Manila as a nuisance per accidens rather than a nuisance per se.

“We already converted your petition from injunction to mandamus, from nuisance per se to [nuisance per] accidens (by accident). Now you ask us to try the facts?” Carpio said, puzzled by Jasarino’s sudden change of mind in referring to the controversial building as a nuisance per accidens.

“We are not a trier of facts. This requires a trial and for us to review it. You are reversing the process. That’s a big problem,” he added.

Jasarino first referred to Torre de Manila as a nuisance per se, saying that the building was unlawful. By now regarding to it as a nuisance per accidens, he is saying that the building became a nuisance by circumstance of its surroundings.

Adding uncertainty to the case, the National Historical Commission of the Philippines guidelines on monuments or the Venice Charter on the safeguarding, which were presented by the lawyers, have no legal effect on the said case.