Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 103 views

    Motion To Dissolve TRO

    Uploaded by

    Butch Khan
    1) The defendant filed a motion to dissolve an ex-parte temporary restraining order (TRO) issued against him on August 21, 2007. 2) The defendant argues that the TRO was issued without a required summary hearing to determine if grounds existed. 3) The defendant states that he relies on vehicle sales commissions as his sole livelihood and that continuing the TRO would cause him grave financial harm and risk lawsuits from vehicle owners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Motion To Dissolve TRO

    Uploaded by

    Butch Khan
    103 views3 pages
    1) The defendant filed a motion to dissolve an ex-parte temporary restraining order (TRO) issued against him on August 21, 2007. 2) The defendant argues that the TRO was issued without a required summary hearing to determine if grounds existed. 3) The defendant states that he relies on vehicle sales commissions as his sole livelihood and that continuing the TRO would cause him grave financial harm and risk lawsuits from vehicle owners.

    Original Description:

    Motion to rescind TRO issued since attachment of already issued by court.

    Original Title

    Motion to Dissolve TRO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The defendant filed a motion to dissolve an ex-parte temporary restraining order (TRO) issued against him on August 21, 2007. 2) The defendant argues that the TRO was issued without a required summary hearing to determine if grounds existed. 3) The defendant states that he relies on vehicle sales commissions as his sole livelihood and that continuing the TRO would cause him grave financial harm and risk lawsuits from vehicle owners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    103 views3 pages

    Motion To Dissolve TRO

    Uploaded by

    Butch Khan
    1) The defendant filed a motion to dissolve an ex-parte temporary restraining order (TRO) issued against him on August 21, 2007. 2) The defendant argues that the TRO was issued without a required summary hearing to determine if grounds existed. 3) The defendant states that he relies on vehicle sales commissions as his sole livelihood and that continuing the TRO would cause him grave financial harm and risk lawsuits from vehicle owners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Republic of the Philippines

    7th Judicial Region


    REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU
    Branch 14, Cebu City

    RENEE VALENCIA BHAGWANDAS,


    Plaintiff,

    - versus - Case No. CEB-33560

    SURESH BHAGWANDAS,
    Defendant.
    X---------------------------------------/

    URGENT MOTION FOR DISSOLUTION OF EX-PARTE


    TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

    COMES NOW, the defendant, by the undersigned counsel, most

    respectfully states, THAT:

    1. An ex-parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was issued by this

    Court on August 21, 2007 which was received by the defendant on

    August 23, 2007;

    2. This ex-parte TRO was issued for a period of twenty (20) days from

    receipt by the defendant of the order;

    3. The defendant believes that there were no justifiable grounds for

    the issuance of the ex-parte TRO without the conduct of a

    summary hearing as required under Section 5 of Rule 58;

    4. Despite the allegations of the plaintiff in the complaint and her

    supporting affidavits, the defendant has manifested, during the

    Preliminary Conference of this case on August 28, 2007 that the

    vehicles alleged to be part of the family business and found at the

    Sure Auto Plaza were all consigned units and not registered in the

    defendant's name;

    5. Moreover, the defendant's only means of livelihood are the

    commissions that he earns from the sale of these vehicles on

    consignment;
    6. It is submitted that the fact that a preliminary attachment was

    already issued by the Court on August 13, 2007 obviates the need

    for the issuance of the ex-parte TRO considering that by attaching

    all properties, real or personal, of the defendant, there would no

    longer be any “great and irreparable” injury suffered by the

    plaintiff;

    7. The conduct of the summary hearing as required by the rules

    would have precluded the issuance of the questioned ex-parte

    TRO;

    8. It is the defendant who stands to suffer grave and irreparable

    injury by the continuation of the ex-parte TRO considering that he

    no longer has any means of earning a living and he is now the

    subject of plaintiff's motion for support pendente lite of which if

    granted would make it impossible for him to comply;

    9. Additionally, the defendant is in grave danger of being sued by the

    consignors of the vehicles in his custody or the subject of a third-

    party complaint now that one of the owners of the vehicles has

    submitted a third party claim before this Honorable Court;

    10. The defendant is also obligated to pay for the rental and

    other expenses of his business which is in grave danger of being

    closed because he could not comply with these obligations;

    11. The very reason that the Supreme Court promulgated

    Administrative Circular No. 20-95, which is now incorporated in

    Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 58, is to prevent the precipitate issuance

    of Temporary Restraining Orders Ex-Parte;

    12. It is respectfully submitted that the grounds relied upon by

    the plaintiff for the issuance of an ex-parte TRO are not present in

    this case and thus the absence of a summary hearing for the
    determination of its issuance makes the same irregularly issued

    and must be dissolved immediately;

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the defendant prays that the

    Honorable Court grant this motion and recall or dissolve the Ex-Parte

    Temporary Restraining Order issued on August 22, 2007;

    Done this 10th day of September 2007 in Cebu City, Philippines.

    You might also like