CEBU, Philippines - For the fourth time, one of the heirs of the late Rev. Fr. Vicente Rallos asked the court to cite for indirect contempt Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama for his refusal to pay P133 million as judgment debt.
This time, Vice Mayor Augustus Young and the city councilors were included in the complaint filed by Lucina Rallos, one of the heirs.
“If execution and garnishment is not palatable to the respondents they had the option of promptly doing the voluntary and active act of making timely delivery of payment of the judgment debt,” she said.
She added that the City Council can approve an ordinance to appropriate money to pay the judgment debt.
But City lawyer Jade Ponce told The FREEMAN the civil case filed against the City Officials is a rehash of previous arguments.
“This is their fourth attempt and they are basing it on a rehash of their previous arguments. There is a term for that, its forum shopping. What’s contemptuous is what they and the sheriff are doing, which is violating the court’s mandate to observe the memorandum of the Supreme Court (SC) and the regulations of Commission on Audit (COA),” he said.
Other named respondents 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.
Lucina said Young and the Council failed to require Rama to comply with the “specific directive” of the court for them to pay P133,469,962.55 as compensation of the property used as public road in Sambag 1.
She added the continued refusal of the City Government to pay them constitutes “disobedience of or resistance to the lawful order or judgment of the court.”
Lucina asked the court to require respondents to explain why they should not be subjected to indirect contempt.
She likewise asked the court to “direct the immediate arrest of all the respondents except respondent City of Cebu, so that all of the respondents may be brought to the honorable court or held in custody during the pendency of the proceedings for indirect contempt of court against them pursuant to Rules of Court.” — (FREEMAN)