Court upholds Army Navy hotel-casino
The façade of the new Army Navy Club, now a hotel and casino.—KIMBERLY DELA CRUZ
The Court of Appeals has thrown out the petition of a self-proclaimed anticrime group questioning the construction of a boutique hotel and casino on a historic property owned by the Manila city government.
The six-page resolution of the appellate court’s 15th Division denied the petition for certiorari filed by the pro-Duterte Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) for violation of the principle of the hierarchy of courts.
The ruling green-lit the plan of Oceanville Hotel and Spa Corp. and Vanderwood Management Corp. to convert the former Army Navy Club on Roxas Boulevard into a hotel and gaming facility.
In dismissing the petition, the court said the VACC should have sought first the intervention of the regional trial courts by asking for the annulment of the contract before bringing their complaint to the appeals court.
It said the group failed to cite any “special, extraordinary or compelling reasons” to justify the direct filing of the petition before the country’s second highest court.
Article continues after this advertisement“Unfortunately, the present petition for certiorari is bereft of any compelling reason or circumstance to warrant an exception to the rule,” the court said in its Feb. 28 ruling, a copy of which was obtained by the media yesterday.
Article continues after this advertisement“Neither certiorari nor prohibition is the remedy in the present case … Wherefore, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby dismissed,” it said.
The court said the case should be “considered closed and terminated” as it ruled that the questioned project was well within the city government’s exercise of its administrative function.
“The City of Manila’s execution of the lease contract with Oceanville … does not fall within the ambit of judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial function as the same is within its prerogative, powers and authority in the exercise of its executive function,” the court argued.
It added: “On this court alone, certiorari and prohibition will not lie.”
