(see previous post) Correction: The judge who issued the TRO clarified that the TRO was not against Uber and GrabCar, rather, it was against the LTFRB and the DOTC, to stop these agencies from further accepting, receiving, processing, and approving applications, or new applications, for registration and issuance of Certificates of Public Convenience in their favor. The judge stressed this in an interview with DZMM by Anthony Taberna.
In other words, Uber and GrabCar can continue operating. Only new applicants would be prevented as the LTFRB and the DOTC had been temporarily restrained from accepting and processing their applications for 20 days (if the TRO is converted to a preliminary injunction — for the duration of the litigation).
The 20-day temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Quezon City (QC) against Uber and GrabCar this afternoon is effective within its judicial region only, which is the National Capital Region, or Metro Manila as it is more popularly known. After the 20 days for which it was issued, it either lapses or is converted into a preliminary injunction; a preliminary injunction is usually effective for the entire period of the litigation or for the entire time that the special civil action is being heard and decided upon. The preliminary injunction would either be dissolved or converted into a permanent injunction. A permanent injunction lasts forever… (merong forever!) unless set aside by a higher court (ay wala palang forever kung may mag-set aside, panibagong litigation), ay — may forever din, if the permanent injunction is issued by the Supreme Court… unless set aside by itself if remotely in a future time, it reverses itself.
(it’s easy to blog about the rules of court)
Writs of the RTC are effective within its judicial region designated by the Supreme Court thru the Rules of Court, except search warrants which are effective only within the venue/territorial jurisdiction of the RTC, e.g., if the search warrant is issued by the RTC QC: it is effective within QC unless the applicant had stated and elucidated “compelling reasons” for its effectivity in the entire judicial region, in which case the RTC may determine the validity of the “compelling reasons” and issue it for the entire judicial region (the constitutionality of this exception to the exception has been questioned by “human rights lawyers” and it has been upheld, pero meron bang forever?)
The real territorial jurisdictional question here is…. (drumroll — where’s my drumroll and cymbals): And what about the GrabHelicopter/ UberHelicopter?! 🙂
