E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 8 of 40 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65160 On March 6, 2015, Cordillera Global Network filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction.[50] On March 24, 2015, this Court required respondents to comment on the Petition. It also issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining private respondents from "implementing the assailed expansion plan, and performing any cutting and balling of trees in Luneta Hill."[51] Private respondents SM Investments Corporation,[52] as well as SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center Management Corporation,[53] Filed their respective comments, with the latter's Comment containing a motion to dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order. On April 1, 2015, public respondents filed a Motion for Extension to File Comment.[54] Later, on April 20, 2015, they filed their Comment.[55] On October 13, 2015, private respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center Management Corporation moved to set the case for oral arguments and dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order.[56] On November 26, 2015, they filed their Third Urgent Reiterative Motion to Dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order.[57] On September 24, 2015, petitioners filed their Very Urgent Comment to the Motions to Lift the Temporary Restraining Order.[58] In turn, private respondents filed their respective replies[59] on January 14, 2016. In its April 19, 2016 Resolution,[60] this Court gave due course to the Petition and required the parties to submit their memoranda. It also reiterated the previously issued Temporary Restraining Order but modified it to exclude the phrase, "implementing the assailed expansion plan[.]"[61] The parties later filed their respective memoranda.[62] Petitioners assert that the Expansion Project is a misnomer as it entirely new project that includes an 11-story mall and a five (5)-story parking lot. They add that the Expansion Project violated zoning and, city ordinances limiting building height to a maximum of six (6) stories.[63] Petitioners maintain that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources erred in not requiring an environmental impact assessment prior to the issuance of the amended Environmental Compliance Certificate. They insist that private respondents needed to obtain a separate environmental compliance certificate for the tree-cutting and earth-balling of the 182 trees since the project was not a mere 4/23/2020, 10:52 AM