CEBU CITY — A regional trial court has dismissed the petition that seeks to stop the redevelopment project of Carbon Market.

Soliver Peras, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court Branch 10 in Cebu City, said in his 11-page decision that the motion for issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was denied after the plaintiffs failed to "substantiate their cause of action."

The decision stemmed from the complaint seeking the nullification of the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) contract and related documents with prayer for a TRO and/or with Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Mandamus.

The complaint was filed on August 25, 2021 by Carbonhanong Alyansa Alang sa Reporma ug Bahandianong Ogma sa mga Nanginabuhi (CARBON), Movement Against Carbon Market Privatization (MACMP) and 10 other organizations.

Named defendants in the complaint were the Megawide Construction Corp., the late City Mayor Edgardo Labella, then Vice Mayor Michael Rama and other City Hall officials.

The city government on January 11, 2021 signed a JVA with Megawide to modernize the 113-year old market.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs asserted that they have causes of action in the instant case as, for one, the JVA dated January 11, 2021 and the related documents are invalid due to violation of laws and public policy.

"They as well aver that there should be reformation and clarification of the true nature of the contract as a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) subject to the provisions of R.A. 6957, as amended by R.A. 7718, and not as a Joint Venture.

Also, the plaintiffs claim the invalidity and nullity of the BOT Contract disguised as a JVA and that Megawide should be prohibited from recouping its costs on the project," read a portion of the order dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiffs also questioned the timing of the project as the country is still reeling from health crisis.

They argued that "they are entitled to full protection and bayanihan during these times of national calamity, disaster and national public health emergency where the informal sector and the poor and marginalized in the Province of Cebu have suffered untold misery and suffering in the form of loss of livelihood and mental-being, among others."

"It is essential that the Court declare a moratorium on any and all threatened acts consisting of or leading to demolition of structures, transfer of sites, transfer of stalls of vendors, increase of market rates and fees and from commencement of civil works, other acts in connection with the implementation of the JVA, that only worsen the state of mental stress of residents at the time," the plaintiffs said.

Moreover, the plaintiffs maintained that the JVA is illegal and void due to serious violations of the law and public policies and for grave abuse of discretion.

In answering the complaint, the city government officials argued that there is no extreme urgency to the application for injunctive relief.

Furthermore, the city likewise denied that was irregularity in the JVA.

The City as well maintained that it has the exclusive right to choose which modality to adopt in its Private-Public Partnership Projects which the city exercised when it adopted the Joint Venture modality in the Carbon Market Redevelopment Project.

The court said that the application for TRO was to resolve whether or not the plaintiffs are the real party in interest and whether or not the plaintiffs will suffer grave and irreparable injuries.

"This Court is not convinced by the claims of the plaintiffs. Such general claims of loss of livelihood and mental being are natural and logical effect if the plaintiffs have a factual right that has been aggrieved due to the Joint Venture Agreement entered into by the defendants," a portion of Peras' decision read.

"Furthermore, this Court wants to be clarified of the doubts surrounding the issue on representation of the real parties in interest in order to determine the existence of the claimed irreparable damage that vendors, informal workers and settlers in the Carbon Market Area would allegedly suffer. Also, the plaintiffs should enlighten the Court as to the nature of the livelihood of the individuals in the area that allegedly would be compromised by the JVA, which would at least convince this Court of the possible damage that they generally claimed," the court added.