3 Cebu magistrates cleared of contempt

The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition to cite for indirect contempt of court the three associate justices of the Court of Appeals in Cebu for stopping the implementation of a lower court decision that ordered the Cebu City government to pay the hei

The high tribunal, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, found no sufficient evidence to hold associate justices Gabriel Ingles, Pamela Ann Abella Maximo and Carmelita Manahan guilty of committing contumacious acts.

“The court finds no compelling reason to deviate from the foregoing conclusion. Indeed, far from being guilty of contumacious conduct, respondent justices’ rightfully exercised prudence and restraint when they resolved to grant the prayer for a WPI (writ of preliminary injunction).”

Lucina Rallos wanted the Supreme Court to cite the three appellate court justices in contempt for issuing a writ of preliminary injunction to the city government despite a Regional Trial Court decision that she claimed to be already final and executor.

The RTC earlier ordered the city government to compensate the Rallos heirs the amount of P34,905,000 for their property that was used as public road in Barangay Sambag I.

However, the city government filed a petition on March 26, 2012 seeking for the annulment of the RTC decision by presenting new evidence that the property sought to be compensated was actually donated to the government.

A compromise agreement or convenio was entered into by the city government the owner donating the property for public use. The agreement was approved on October 18, 1940 by the Court of First Instance.

The evidence presented by the city government has convinced the appellate court justices to rule in favor of the government. It ruled on June 26, 2012 granting the writ of preliminary injunction, which the Supreme Court has sustained.

“The June 26, 2012 Resolution was issued to prevent grave injustice to Cebu City in case the disputed lots will be adjudicated in its favor. Such application of judicial discretion is consistent with the directive of Administrative Circular No. 10-2000 to exercise utmost caution, prudence and judiciousness in the issuance of writs of execution to satisfy money judgments against government agencies and local government units,” the decision read.

According to Peralta, the respondent justices did not violate any rule of law. He added that the respondents even conducted a hearing before issuing the writ of preliminary injunction and both parties were granted time to argue for their respective claims.—