Court of Appeals justices cleared of raps in Rallos case

CEBU, Philippines - The Supreme Court has cleared six justices of the Court of Appeals (CA) in Cebu City from administrative complaints filed by a certain Lucina Rallos in relation to a controversial lot she is fighting for against the Cebu City government.

Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin said he and the other justices cannot subscribe to Rallos' contentions that the series of inhibitions of CA justices from the case constituted a "scheme" to favor the city.

"She (Rallos) presented no proof to validate her suggestion. In fact, she herself conceded that she was thereby only voicing out her suspicion of an irregularity. To stress, their good faith and regularity in the performance of official duties, which are strong presumptions under our laws, should prevail unless overcome by contrary proof," the decision reads.

Rallos filed the case against CA associate justices Pampio Abarintos, Ramon Paul Hernando, Victoria Isabel Paredes, Gabriel Ingles, Pamela Ann Maxino and Carmelita Manahan.

Background

The city government filed a petition before the CA  in 2012 seeking for the annulment of final decisions and orders of the trial court holding it liable to pay P34,905,000 just compensation to the heirs of Vicente Rallos for its property used as public road. The city government also asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/ or writ of  preliminary injunction.

The city government alleged that the heirs have been obliged under a compromise agreement called convenio as approved on October 18, 1940 by the Court of  First Instance (CFI) of the Province of Cebu in civil cases No. 616 and No. 626, to donate and transfer the parcels of land in question to Cebu City.

"…that Cebu City should not be made to pay just compensation for the parcels of land in question despite the final and executory decision in Civil Case No. CEB-20388 because of the ruling by the CFI in Civil Case No. 616 and Civil Case No. 626 to the effect that the parcels of land in question had been donated to Cebu City," the city pointed out.

The case was raffled to Abarintos, as the chairman; Hernando, as the senior member and Paredes, as the junior member of the 18th Division.

Hernando then issued a TRO on April 13, 2012 and enjoined the trial court from implementing its decision. Days after the issuance of the TRO, he inhibited from handling the case.

The case was assigned to Paredes, but he was transferred to Manila. Abarintos takes on the case but inhibited two days later. Delos Santos also inhibited.

Through a raffle draw, the case was assigned to Ingles who was designated as chairman of the 18th Division for purposes of the case. Together with Ingles, Maxino and Manahan were assigned, respectively, as senior and junior members of the division.

On June 26, 2012, Rallos said the 18th Division granted the city's application for a writ of injunction, thus, moved for reconsideration of the ruling.

Bersamin said that on August 10, 2012, they received a letter-complaint filed by Rallos requesting for an investigation into an alleged "unlawful and unethical conduct" of Abarintos, Hernando and Paredes.

On Sept. 12, 2012, Bersamin said they received a complaint from Rallos charging Ingles, Maxino and Manahan with administrative and criminal offenses for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.

With the foregoing, Bersamin said administrative complaints are not proper remedies to attack the alleged erroneous resolutions of the justices. He said errors can be corrected through appeal and or a petition for certiorari.

"It is to be mentioned, too, that the CA had not yet resolved Cebu City's main suit for the annulment of judgment on the merits; hence, it was premature and unprocedural for her (Rallos) to insist that the respondent justices could have already ruled on the grounds for annulment. That resolution should be awaited because the issue on the validity and effectiveness of the convenio could precisely still require the CA's appreciation of the convenio as evidence," the decision reads.

With the inhibition of justices, he said it is a primarily a matter of sound discretion on their part. He said contrary to the allegation of Rallos, he found no evidence that would establish that justices who inhibited from the case were bias.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court directs that all parties in any action or proceedings shall be notified within five days of the mandatory disqualification or voluntary inhibition of a judge or justice who has participated in any action of the court, stating the reasons. — (FREEMAN)