City asks court to dismiss Rallos case

Citing lack of merit, Cebu City officials asked the court to dismiss the complaint filed against them by one of the heirs of the late Rev. Fr. Vicente Rallos for the City Government’s refusal to pay P133 million as judgment debt.

In their reply, the defendants through the Office of the Cebu City Attorney sought the dismissal of the indirect contempt filed by Lucina Rallos.

Mayor Michael Rama, Vice Mayor Augustus Young and city councilors cited litis pendentiaor a pending suit and forum shopping as grounds of the dismissal of the case.

Based on reports it was the fourth time that Lucina filed an indirect contempt in relation to the judgment debt.

Other defendants of the case were councilors Sisinio Andales, Alvin Arcilla, Ma. Nida Cabrera, Alvin Dizon, Lea Japson, Edgardo Labella, Augustus Pe, Jr., Noel Wenceslao, Rodrigo Abellanosa, Raul Alcoseba, Roberto Cabarrubias, Margarita Osmeña, Ronald Cuenco, Jose Daluz III, Richard Osmeña, Eduardo Rama Jr., Michael Ralota and John Philip Echaves-po II.

They argued that they could not be held liable for indirect contempt as they were exhausting all their legal remedies “to assail the validity of the execution of the decision, including the writs and order in relation to the case.”

They added that they were just protecting the money of the people and that from the start the entire case has no basis.

“The subject properties are and always have been road lots and are thus, public in nature, beyond the commerce of men and ownership thereof is automatically vested in the defendant City of Cebu.”

“Common sense dictates that one cannot take what one already owns. Thus, there was never any taking that would entitle anyone to just compensation,” the city officials said in their reply.

They likewise, stressed that without their consent, the garnishment could not be possible and the petitioner cannot levy their real properties without exhausting their personal properties.

In their counterclaim, the defendants asked for moral damages against the petitioner for P5 million for filing “baseless, unfounded and unwarranted petition” against them.

They said they “gravely suffered mental anguish, anxieties, besmirched reputation and felt grossly harassed.” They also asked for P5 million for exemplary damages to prevent Lucina from committing “unjustifiable” acts.

The case is about a property used as public road in Sambag 1.