Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila KNIGHTS OF RIZAL, Petitioner, G.R. No.___________________ - versus- With Applications For Temporary Restraining Order, Writ of Preli- minary injunction, and Others DMCI HOMES, INC., Respondent. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x PETITION FOR INJUNCTION PETITIONER KNIGHTS OF RIZAL (or ORDER OF THE KNIGHTS OF RIZAL) most respectfully states as follows: PREFATORY STATEMENT PETITIONER is prompted with urgency to go to no less than the HIGHEST TRIBUNAL of the country due to what it sees as an impending permanent desecration of a National Cultural Treasure that is the Rizal Monument and a historical, political, socio-cultural landmark that is the Rizal Park. There is now under construction a towering building for profit, the condominium known as the Torre de Manila which, when completed, will forever alter the landscape of the monument and the 2 park. Adding insult to injury, the said commercial project is being bannered as pursuit of development. Under this situation, PETITIONER sees an occasion for another possible historic first from a proactive, forward looking and ever vigilant Supreme Court: a WRIT OF PAMANA (or HERITAGE) or WRIT of KASAYSAYAN (or HISTORY) as a legal remedy for the protection of the citizen’s right to "all the country's artistic and historic wealth [which] constitutes the cultural treasure of the nation” (Sections 14, 15 and 16, Article XIV of the Constitution). 1. PARTIES 1.01 Petitioner KNIGHTS OF RIZAL or ORDER OF THE KNIGHTS OF RIZAL (hereinafter referred to simply as “KOR”) is a public corporation created under Republic Act No. 646 dated June 14, 1951 (R.A. 646) 1 , with business and office address at the 3/F KOR Building, Bonifacio Drive, Port Area, Intramuros, Manila, where it may be served with summons and other court processes. 1.02 The KOR is represented in the instant petition by its Deputy Chief Executive Officer, called the Deputy Supreme Commander, in the person of Sir Diosdado D. Santos, KGOR. Sir Diosdado is authorized to file said petition by virtue of a Secretary’s Certificate 2 signed by the organization’s Supreme Pursuivant, Sir 3 Maximo Salazar, KGOR, the equivalent to a corporate secretary of a typical corporate entity. 1.03. Respondent DMCI HOMES, INC. (“DHI”, for brevity), on the other hand, is a domestic corporation which had been created and organized and is now existing and operating under pertinent laws of the Philippines. It maintains business and office address at No. 1321 Apolinario St., Brgy. Bangkal, Makati City, Metropolitan Manila, where it may be served with summons and other court processes. 2. COMMON ALLEGATIONS Standing of the KOR as a Petitioner 2.01 By the express provision of its By-Laws 3 , the KOR is a civic, patriotic, cultural, non-partisan, non-sectarian and non-profit organization. 2.02. Its legislative charter, aforesaid R.A. No. 646, decreed that the KOR is to accomplish certain purposes, to wit: SECTION 2. The purposes of this corporation shall be to study the teaching of Dr. Jose Rizal, to inculcate and propagate them in and among all classes of Filipino people, and by words and deeds to exhort our citizenry to emulate and practice the examples and teachings of our national hero; to promote among the associated knights the spirit of patriotism and Rizalian chivalry; to develop a perfect union 4 among the Filipinos in revering the memory of Dr. Jose Rizal; and to organize and hold programs commemorative of Rizal’s nativity and martyrdom. 2.03 Since its inception, the KOR had attracted and continues to attract to its fold as members ardent nationalists, patriots and believers in the ideals of Rizal from all walks of life, both here and abroad. 2.04 The men who rose to the organization’s highest leadership can only be described as the cream of the crop of Philippine society, all established and recognized in their respective fields of endeavour. The illustrious men who became KOR Supreme Commanders in seriatim were Col. Antonio C. Torres, Martin P. de Veyra, Manuel Lim, Juan F. Nakpil, Herminio Velarde, Teodor Evangelista, Hermenegildo B. Reyes, Santiago F. Dela Cruz, Jesus E. Perpinan, Vitalino Bernardino, Jose M. Paredes, Claudio Teehankee, Jose S. Laurel III, Justo P. Torres, Jr., Simeon C. Medalla, Conrado M. Vasquez, Sr., Filemon H. Mendoza, Angel Rizal Alvarez, Elias B. Lopez, Lamberto C. Nanquil, Demetrio Hilbero, Rogelio M. Quiambao, Vicente P. Palmon, Carmelo T. Gempesaw, Jesus B. David, Jose D. Lina, Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Virgilio R. Esguerra, Pablo S. Trillana III and Reghis M. Romero II. The organization is now headed by Sir Jeremias C. Singson, KGCR. 5 2.05 Section 7 of Republic Act No. 7356, the law creating the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), makes it a civic duty of every citizen to protect the nation’s heritage. More specifically, that provision states as follows, to wit: SECTION 7. Preservation of the Filipino Heritage – It is the duty of every citizen to preserve and conserve the Filipino historical and cultural heritage and resources.” 2.06 Thus, the preservation of the country’s is not only the obligation of the State. It is the bounden duty of every Filipino. 2.07 As a public corporation, the KOR is a corporate citizen of this country. Through legislative fiat, it is also vested with a legal personality to sue, among others. Its authorized purposes grant it an interest and stake in protecting the sanctity of the memory of the National Hero by preventing any desecration of his monument or of the park by Torre De Manila or any other means. 2.08 The KOR respectfully submits that it may be grouped in the category of the so-called nontraditional plaintiffs, together with taxpayers, legislators and others, referred to in Automotive Industry Workers Alliance (AIWA) vs. Romulo (449 SCRA 1, Jan. 18, 2005) and other cases who or which may be accorded the requisite standing under certain circumstances. 6 2.09 In many decisions, this Hon. Court, adopting a liberal attitude and exercising full judicial discretion, extended consideration to the said nontraditional plaintiffs by way of “relaxation of the rule on standing” or “the brushing aside of the technicalities of procedure”. And, an occasion like those was “neither a rarity nor accidental” (David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160, May 3, 2006). 2.10 In such instances, the liberal approach was taken when the Hon. Court perceived the matter presented to it for resolution to be one of transcendental importance, paramount public interest, of overarching significance to society, or with far reaching implication. (Araneta vs. Dinglasan, 84 Phil 368; Dumlao vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-522245, 22 January 1980; Basco vs. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52; Osmena vs. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 750; Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, 211 SCRA 219; Tatad vs. Secretary of the Department of Energy, 281 SCRA 330; IBP vs. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81; Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, 347 SCRA 128; Automotive Industry Workers Alliance vs. Romulo, 449 SCRA 1; Francisco, Jr. vs. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc. 415 SCRA 44; Suplico vs. NEDA, 558 SCRA 329; Planters Products, Inc. vs. Fertiphil Corporation, 548 SCRA 485; SJS vs. Dangerous Drugs Board, 570 SCRA 410; Mamba vs. Lara, 608 SCRA 149; Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, 632 SCRA 146; Apo Fruits Corp. vs. Land Bank, 647 SCRA 207; Gamboa vs. Teves, 652 SCRA 690; IDEALS, Inc. vs. PSALM, 682 SCRA 602; Advocates of Truth 7 In Lending, Inc. vs. Bangko Sentral Monetary Board, 688 SCRA 530; and many other cases.) 2.11 KOR believes and so holds that the matter subject of the instant petition, the threatening desecration of the National Hero’s Monument and the park within which it is located through the continuing construction of a tall condominium project at its background qualifies as one of transcendental importance, paramount public interest, of overarching significance to society, or with far reaching implication. DHI and its Torre de Manila Condominium Project 2.12 DHI is a juridical entity which has been authorized to and is actually engaged in the construction and marketing of condominium projects, among others. 2.13 DHI is the owner-developer of a residential condominium project, dubbed as “Torre de Manila” (henceforth, PROJECT), which is currently being constructed between the Rizal Park and Adamson University. When completed, the PROJECT will stand at 46 storeys tall. 2.14 DHI’s website presents the location and vicinity map, in an artist’s version 4 and an actual one 5 , which show that the PROJECT is thirty (30) meters at its nearest point to the edge of Rizal Park, 8 separated only by Taft Avenue. It is seven hundred eighty nine (789) meters from the same nearest point to the Rizal monument. Rizal Park and the Rizal Monument 2.15 The Rizal Park, aside from being a popular park and destination for local and foreign tourists alike in the middle of the urbane City of Manila, is sacred ground in the historic struggle for freedom in this country. The said park, formerly called Luneta de Bagumbayan because of its lunette shape embracing the old walled capital city of Manila, Intramuros, serving also as its buffer zone to see attacks from the natives, was an execution site for those who defied Spanish colonialism. This was where the patriot priests Mariano Gomes, Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora were garroted in 1872. The National Hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, was also shot here along with many other martyrs of the 1896 revolution. The blood of these martyrs ignited many hearts to join the Philippine Revolution which victoriously drove out the Spaniards in 1898 after 333 years of masterly dominance. The park served as the venue for the historic ceremony of July 4, 1946, where the Americans returned independence to the Filipinos. This is also where the major rallies of the last leg of the struggle against the dictatorship happened and was graced by millions of Filipinos which eventually led to the People Power Revolution of 1986. 9 In the deaths of the beloved leaders Ninoy Aquino in 1983 and Corazon Aquino in 2009, their funeral processions were stopped here by hundreds of thousands of mourners to link their lives as a continuing struggle for nationhood which the martyrs started. 2.16 There is no doubt that every major political activity, be it to drum up, show support or demonstrate political muscle and strength for a political candidate or party, or for a new President’s inauguration, or to express indignation and other sentiments over certain developments, such as the pork scam, or even to display religious fervor to El Shaddai or Poong Nazareno or just to worship has taken place within the Rizal Park. 2.17 The entire park is fifty eight hectares. It has many facilities and boasts of numerous features. However, easily the most prominent structure within and outside its immediate confine is the Rizal Monument. 2.18 The Rizal Monument, which was erected in 1913, is standing on the ground where the mortal remains of the National, Hero Dr. Jose Rizal is buried. In 1912, Dr. Rizal’s remains finally got a decent burial with honors from a grateful nation spearheaded by the Order of the Knights of Rizal and the masons. The monument was made in Switzerland by Swiss sculptor Richard Kissling, the design of which was called “Motto Stella”, the guiding star. The three stars arranged in a 10 triangle resembled the stars and the triangle of the Philippine flag. The triangle is based on that of the Katipunan. These symbolized the whole nation consisting of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. The bronze statue of Jose Rizal holding books and the surrounding figures, especially the mother reading to a child, depict the importance of education. The monument was a product of “bayanihan”. It was built by donations from the whole nation in a public subscription that went beyond the target of a hundred thousand pesos. Since then, veterans of the revolution march in front of the monument, leaders of the city and the country honor the national hero during annual public national holidays, such as Independence Day and Rizal Day, and world leaders in working and state visits honor the country by honoring the monument. Photographs from different periods show the Filipino people surrounding the monument in awe and admiration. It had become our Eiffel Tower, our Forbidden City, our St. Peter’s Basilica, our Brandenburg Gate, our Washington Monument. The monument has, in itself, become a beloved symbol of the city and of the nation. 2.19 The long, undisputed, wide acceptance of the importance of said monument is made formal by the declaration of the National Museum of the Philippines that it is a National Cultural Treasure 6 . This further confirms what is common knowledge about the structure, that it “xxx possesses outstanding historical, cultural and artistic value xxx highly significant to the country.” 11 Impacts of the PROJECT on the Rizal Monument and the Rizal Park 2.20 Once finished at its highest level of 46 storeys or about one thirty eight (138) meters measured from ground level, the PROJECT, sticking out like a sore thumb, dwarfs all surrounding buildings within a radius of two kilometer/s. The buildings around it average five storeys or about 15 meters in height. 2.21 Worse, a completed Torre de Manila would forever ruin the sightline of the Rizal Monument in Luneta Park: Torre de Manila building would loom at the back and overshadow the entire monument, whether up close or viewed from a distance. No one can take a photo of the Rizal Shrine without also capturing the high-rise condominium at its back. A digitalized version 7 of the PROJECT at the back of the monument clearly shows the above-described adverse impact on the sightline of the monument. 2.22 Moreover, the importance of the landmark that is the monument will be devalued. If commercial or business interest is given priority over a cultural heritage as great as the Rizal Monument, future generations of Filipinos 12 and other individuals will have nothing left to properly identify with the heroic past of the nation. Allowing Torre de Manila to be put up will be the worst precedent imaginable. After it is permitted to happen, what will be next? There will be no stopping the commercialization of historical landmarks. The loss or substantial diminution of a sense of culture, history, and tradition and, perhaps, even of national identity, may be not too far behind. 3. MATERIAL DATES 3.01 During the 27 August 2014 hearing of the Senate Committee on Education, Arts and Culture, joint with the Committee on Urban Planning, Housing and Resettlement, KOR learned about the resolution of the Manila Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals granting DHI an exemption to the local zoning ordinance for its PROJECT. The KOR asked the DHI to cease from proceeding with the construction that it had commenced on the basis of the exemption. 3.02 In the hearing of the same committees exactly a week later, DHI was found to have persisted in its PROJECT construction. 13 Hence, this petition. 4. GROUNDS FOR THE INJUNCTION IN EMBARKING ON THE PROJECT AND CONTINUING WITH ITS CONSTRUCTION, DHI HAS ACTED AND CONTINUES TO BE IN BAD FAITH AND VIOLATES MANILA’S ZONING ORDINANCE AND OTHER LAWS AS WELL AS EXISTING GUIDELINES ON MONUMENTS. UNLESS ENJOINED AND REMOVED, THE PROJECT WOULD PRODUCE PERMANENT AND MONUMENTAL PREJUDICE AND INJUSTICE TO PRESENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS OF FILIPINOS AND OTHER NATIONALS. 5. DISCUSSIONS The Constitution mandates a definitive action on the matter. 5.01 The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines leaves no doubt as to the importance of the nation’s historical treasure and the obligation of the State to protect it. More specifically, the basic law’s Article XIV, which is on Education, Science And Technology, Arts, Culture And Sports, has this to say on Arts and Culture in its Sections 15 and 16, to wit: 14 Section 15. Arts and letters shall enjoy the patronage of the State. The State shall conserve, promote, and popularize the nation's historical and cultural heritage and resources, as well as artistic creations. (Underscoring supplied.) Section 16. All the country's artistic and historic wealth constitutes the cultural treasure of the nation and shall be under the protection of the State which may regulate its disposition.” The PROJECT despoils a National Cultural Treasure. 5.02 As a declared National Cultural Treasure, the Rizal Monu- ment is entitled to full protection of the law. Among the laws that guarantee such protection are the following: (i) Republic Act No. 4846, otherwise known as the “Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection Act;” (ii) Republic Act no. 7356, which created the National Commission on Culture and the Arts; and, (iii) Republic Act no. 10066, the “National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009, “An Act Providing for the Protection and Conservation of the National Cultural Heritage”; 5.03 As stated above, the protection of the cultural heritage 15 of the Philippines is a policy of the state as well as the duty of every Filipino citizen pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act no. 7356. To reiterate, said section says, to wit: “Section 7. Preservation of the Filipino heritage – it is the duty of every citizen to preserve and conserve the Filipino historical and cultural heritage and resources.” 5.04 Consequently, any act or activity endangering or diminishing the value of the nation’s cultural heritage must be abated by the national government, even against the wishes of the local government hosting it. The PROJECT is a nuisance per se. 5.05 The PROJECT now rising inexorably in the background of the Rizal Monument is a nuisance as defined in Article 694 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. ART. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, condition of property, or anything else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or, (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or, (3) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or streets, or any body of water; or, 16 (4) Hinders or impairs the use of property. (Emphasis supplied.) 5.06 The despoliation of the sight view of the Rizal Monument is a situation that “annoys or offends the senses” of every Filipino who honors the memory of the National Hero Jose Rizal. It is a present, continuing, worsening and aggravating status or condition. Hence, the PROJECT is a nuisance per se. It deserves to be abated summarily, even without need of judicial proceeding. 5.07 Where there was once nothing to block the sight view of the Rizal Monument but the infinity of a blue sky, there will soon be a towering structure called Torre De Manila, all of 46 stories, when completed. The iridescent clouds that once mesmerized the viewers of the monument will now be enjoyed by the owners of the said PROJECT, with a 360-degree view of the Luneta Park and surroundings. And this is exactly the selling point of DHI for Torre de Manila. 5.08 The PROJECT deprives the monument the attributes of light and view that bestow it with grandeur. It strips away part of the ambiance that Filipinos have enjoyed for the past hundred years and which their children and children’s children will never see again, except in still photos and pictures. It shrinks the monument in scale and renders it unimposing, Lilliputian, and unremarkable in relation to the surroundings. 17 5.09 Torre de Manila does not only offend the sensibility of every patriotic Filipino, it desecrates the very ground consecrated by the blood of the martyred Jose Protacio Rizal. Let it not be forgotten that the park is named in honor of the National Hero. Dr. Rizal or his Monument should dominate the view - forever. It was not constructed to honor any of the unitowners of Torre de Manila. 5.10 This PROJECT blatantly violates the National Historical Commission of the Philippines’ “Guidelines on Monuments Honoring National Heroes, Illustrious Filipinos and Other Personages”, which guidelines have the force of law. The said guidelines dictate that historic monuments should assert a visual “dominance” over the surroundings by the following measures, among others: DOMINANCE (i) Keep vista points and visual corridors to monuments clear for unobstructed viewing and appreciation and photographic opportunities; (ii) Commercial buildings should not proliferate in a town center where a dominant monument is situated SITE AND ORIENTATION (i) The conservation of a monument implies preserving a setting, which is not out of scale. Wherever the traditional setting exists, it must be kept. No new 18 construction, demolition or modification, which would alter the relations of mass and color, must be allowed. (ii) The setting is not only limited with the exact area that is directly occupied by the monument, but it extends to the surrounding areas whether open space or occupied by other structures as may be defined by the traditional or juridical expanse of the property. 5.11 The PROJECT also runs afoul of an international commitment of the Philippines, the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, otherwise known as the Venice Charter. That agreements says, in part, as follows: ARTICLE 1. The concept of an historic monument embraces not only the single architectural work but also the urban or rural setting in which is found the evidence of a particular civilization, a significant development or an historic event. This applies not only to great works of art but also to more modest works of the past which have acquired cultural significance with the passing of time; xxxx ARTICLE 6. The conservation of a monument implies preserving a setting, which is not out of scale. Wherever the traditional setting exists, it must be kept. No new construction, demolition or modification, which would alter the relations of mass and color, must be allowed. (Underscorings supplied.) 5.12 Being a nuisance per se, it follows that the PROJECT must be demolished. Immediately. 19 The construction of Torre de Manila was commenced and continues to be built in bad faith and blatant violation of the zoning ordinance of the City of Manila. 5.13 DHI applied for and was given a zoning permit 8 for the PROJECT. Then, DHI secured a building permit 9 therefor on 5 July 2012. The latter issuance indicated that Torre de Manila would have 46 storeys. 5.14 In an assessment made during the hearing of August 27, 2014, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Education, Arts and Culture noted that the DHI’s application for building permit should have been denied in the first place. This observation was concurred in by Manila’s current head of its planning office 10 . During the same occasion, no less than the legal counsel of DHI admitted that the company effectively did not follow the procedure prescribed under Manila City Ordinance No. 8119, otherwise known as the Zoning Ordinance of Manila, for obtaining the zoning and building permits. 11 5.15 Amidst public outcry from concerned citizens and heritage groups, citing violations of the aforesaid ordinance, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 121 12 , calling for the revocation of the building permit and suspension of the construction activity of DHI for its PROJECT. 20 5.16 It was pointed out in said Resolution that the Torre de Manila violates the zoning restrictions by locating within the City’s “institutional university cluster,” an area reserved for schools and government buildings. Moreover, height restrictions limit buildings to floor-to-area ratio of 4 within the said zone. This means that building height would be at a maximum of seven storeys. However, Torre de Manila has a floor-to- area ratio of 7.79, which translates to a soaring building that is 46- storey high, or almost six times the height limit. 5.17 Yet, after construction activities for the PROJECT were suspended for more than a year, the same resumed briskly at the beginning of 2014. This happened after the Manila Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals (MZBAA) gave DHI an “exemption” 13 to the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance and the City Council reconsidered its previous Resolution No. 121. 5.18 It is clear from the foregoing that DHI, despite its violations, DHI went on with the construction of the PROJECT and appears to be bent on completing the same as fast as it can, in manifest bad faith. 6. ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 21 6.01 KOR reiterates that the foregoing allegations insofar as they are material and relevant. It further states that: 6.02 The clock is ticking on the Rizal Monument and the Rizal Park. The PROJECT is now 22.83% complete; it has reached the 19 th floor as of August 20, 2014 based on the “construction update” posted on DHI’s website. 14 It is slowly but surely crowding out the vista behind the Rizal Monument and the Rizal Park. At its pace now, every week a new floor is added to the building. A comparison of photos 15 taken of the Rizal Monument from the same side of Roxas Boulevard, Manila at different periods of time up to August 2014 underscores a growing retrogression of the background of the monument, from one that had an unobstructed view of the background of blue sky and empty air to one that is slowly being crowded by a rising structure behind. When Torre de Manila finally reaches the full height of 46 floors by the target date of 2016, it will completely dominate the vista and, consequently, substantially diminish in scale and importance the most cherished monument to the National Hero. It will have the same effect for the view of the Luneta Park. And this will be for all eternity. 22 6.03 But, now, there is enough time to enjoin further construction activities of the PROJECT before it inflicts maximum and permanent damage on a public institution. It is not yet too late. 6.04 The early issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction will also minimize the damage on DHI which will be spared from putting in money on a PROJECT whose only proper fate is demolition. 6.05 The PROJECT constitutes a public nuisance of the highest order. It is exactly the kind of status or condition that “annoys and offends the senses,” within the purview of Article 694 of the Civil Code defining a nuisance. 6.06 It trivializes a historical landmark and desecrates the memory of the National Hero. 6.07 The damage to DHI that a stoppage of construction now may be calculated. However, the prejudice to the National Heritage and History is indubitably incalculable. 6.08 The commission and continuation of the foregoing act of construction would work grave injustice and irreparable damage/injury 23 to the Filipino nation and lovers of the ideals of Rizal worldwide. Such injury is not susceptible to being measured with reasonable accuracy by any standard and, thus, falls within the doctrine laid down in the landmark case of Social Security Commission vs. Bayona (5 SCRA 126). 6.09 Respondent DMCI Homes, Inc. is continuing with the construction of the PROJECT, in violation of the rights of this nation and other peoples to their cultural and historical patrimony that is the Rizal Monument and the Rizal Park. 6.10 There is no appeal, or plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to the KOR and lovers of the ideals of Rizal. 6.11 Considering that it has no direct pecuniary interest in the instant petition, the KOR, guided by par. (b), Section 4 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, is requesting this Honorable Court to exempt it from the requirement to post a bond. P R A Y E R WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner KNIGHTS OF RIZAL or ORDER OF THE KNIGHTS OF RIZAL hereby respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that – 24 (1) An Order be issued recognizing the KNIGHTS OF RIZAL or ORDER OF THE KNIGHTS OF RIZAL as possessing the requisite standing to file and pursue the instant petition for injunction and, further, declaring that it is exempt from the usual requirement to file a bond to support its prayers for temporary restraining order (TRO) and, later on, a preliminary injunction; (2) Pending the required hearing, if said hearing is still deemed necessary by the Hon. Court, and to prevent the subject matter from becoming moot and academic, an ex-parte TRO be issued pursuant to the first paragraph of Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, directing DMCI HOMES, INC., any of its directors, officers, employees, contractors, sub-contractors, agents, representatives and/or other persons under its authority, direction or control to immediately and completely desist and refrain from continuing with the construction and development of the Torre de Manila, or otherwise from implementing its development plan, in whole or in part; (3) Before the expiration of the ex-parte TRO above- mentioned, if granted, to issue a regular TRO for the same purposes; 25 Thereafter, before the lapse of the effectivity of the said TRO and after complying with the prescribed procedure, (4) Issue a preliminary injunction to serve the same purpose as the TRO but this time without any limitation in its period of effectivity; And, after proper proceedings, (5) Decree a permanent Prohibitory Injunction ordering the DMCI HOMES, INC., any of its directors, officers, employees, contractors, sub-contractors, agents, representatives and/or other persons under its authority, direction or control to completely and permanently desist and refrain from continuing with the construction and development of the Torre de Manila, or otherwise from implementing its development plan, in whole or in part. (6) Order the immediate and complete demolition of the condominium PROJECT that is the Torre de Manila to clear the view of the Rizal Monument and the Rizal Park for posterity. 26 Other reliefs that are fair, equitable, just and proper under the circumstances are likewise prayed for. Pateros for Manila; 12 September 2014. WILLIAM L. JASARINO PTR No. 6302851; 01-06-14; Pateros IBP Lifetime Membership No. 011569; 15 February 2013; Pasig City Roll of Attorney No. 38571 MCLE Compliance No. IV – 0010010 Dec. 4, 2012 Penthouse Suite, J Centre 926 P. Herrera, Aguho Pateros 1620, Metropolitan Manila VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION I, Sir Diosdado D. Santos, KGOR, a married Filipino of legal age, with business address at the 3rd Floor KOR Building, A. Bonifacio Drive, Intramuros, Manila, under oath, depose and state: 1. I am the Deputy Supreme Commander and authorized representative of the order of the Knights of Rizal, the Petitioner in the above-entitled case; 2. I caused the preparation and have read the foregoing Petition for Injunction and I attest that, based on my personal knowledge and authentic records made available to me, all allegations contained therein are true and correct; · 3. No other action or proceeding involving the same issues raised in the foreground Petition has previously been commenced and/or is pending with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any division thereof, or any tribunal or agency; and, 4. I undertake to inform this Honorable Court within five (5) days from notice of any similar action or proceeding which may hav been filed. DI REPUBLIC ~t:JHE PHILIPPINES ) "IA " CITY ) SS. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me SE~ --1-1-2fb11t. of September 2014 by affiant Diosdado D. Santos exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate No. , issued on 2014 at and a competent evidence of identity in the form of DocNo.-!!J-; Page No. I /; Book No. XC/ ; Series of 2014. Published 7:39 PM, July 21, 2015 Updated 7:39 PM, Jul 21, 2015 The Supreme Court (SC) hears the oral argument against Torre de Manila filed by the Knights of Rizal on July 21, 2015 Mark Z … (continue reading) http://world.einnews.com/article__detail/277007525?lcode=ZYrmKFlbc3GCCz2DyiYZmxOY7BhCFAW1YszWVdtmgJs%3D http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/microsite/riza-dcmi/index.html http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/microsite/riza-dcmi/petition.pdf