Judge in Rallos case inhibits

CEBU, Philippines - Regional Trial Court Branch 9 acting judge James Stewart Himalaloan inhibited himself from further hearing the two cases filed by the heirs of Fr. Vicente Rallos against the Cebu City Government.

The camp of Rallos filed indirect contempt against the city government for non-compliance of the court order telling the city government to pay P13.3 million as compensation for the Rallos property used as a public road in Sambag 1.

In turn the city government filed an urgent omnibus motion and supplemental urgent omnibus motion to quash the writ of execution and set aside the notice of garnishment.

Himalaloan cited paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court or a disqualification of judges as grounds of his inhibition from further hearing of pleadings in connection with the quashal of execution and set aside the notice of garnishment and indirect contempt.

“Wherefore, by the foregoing premise and pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, the undersigned judge inhibits himself from further hearing whatever incidents in connection with Civil Case No. 20388 and in trying and decision Civil Case No. CEB-38212,” the omnibus order reads.

The last paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court would mean “a judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.”

In the omnibus order, Himalaloan stated “regardless of who are the officials standing for the defendant, a juridical entity, yet, it is clear that defendant Cebu City is among the handful of local government units in the country that comply with the provision of the Local Government Code providing assistance to the judiciary adequately.”

Meanwhile, the city government filed their motion for reconsideration in the order of Himalaloan dated October 26, 2011 in the denial of their motion to quash the execution and set aside the garnishment.

City lawyers said the denial of Himalaloan “substantially impaired the rights of the defendant.”

They said the newly discovered evidence by the city of the compromise agreement that the subject lot was donated by the Ralloses to the city government on Sept. 22, 1940 constitute doubt to the decision of the court.

Further, they said they are not liable to pay for the judgment debt worth P13.3 million.

The city government now sought the court to reconsider its ruling in denying their pleadings and to issue a status quo.  (FREEMAN)