THE Court of Appeals (CA) has ruled final, at its level, in permanently stopping the Pasig City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 153 from enforcing an order in connection with the court sheriff’s takeover of the People’s Television Network Inc.’s (PTNI) antenna tower.
In a two-page resolution of the court’s Seventh Division, penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam, it affirmed its earlier ruling in granting the petition for review filed by PTNI or PTV 4 holding that the RTC committed abuse of discretion when it ruled in favor of New Vision in Media Marketing Inc. (NVMMI).
The appellate court junked the motion for reconsideration filed by NVMMI since it offers no new argument, which would warrant the reversal of their earlier findings.
“After a careful review of the private respondent’s motion for reconsideration, we find that the issues raised therein were already comprehensively discussed and passed upon by this Court in its assailed decision. We had taken a second hard look at the said motion and decision but we found no compelling reason to reverse our previous ruling,” it states.
NVMMI sued PTNI for it supposedly owe them P14 million.
The Court stopped the public auction of the PTNI property scheduled on February 15 by issuing a restraining order.
The subject of levy and for execution sale was the Channel 4 transmitter (antenna tower) at the Channel 4 Office at Broadcast Complex, Visayas Avenue in Diliman, Quezon City.
On January 25 this year, the RTC granted NVMMI’s motion for execution, and the notice of levy issued by the branch sheriff pursuant to the said writ.
In the ruling, the appellate court found that “the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued the assailed order contrary to the compromise agreement and without due regard to the Commission on Audit’s requirement. Accordingly, the RTC must be permanently enjoined from executing the same.
“It is worthy to reiterate this Court’s findings that the RTC erred in subjecting to levy and execution sale of petitioner’s transmitter tower to satisfy the latter’s outstanding obligation to private respondent NVMMI as it runs counter to the terms and conditions of their consolidated compromise agreement which had been approved by the RTC. Based on the express provisions therein, the parties clearly intended to settle their respective obligations thru off-setting of accounts,” it added.