Demolition in Warwick, Court asked: Reverse dismissal of damage suit

CEBU, Philippines - The fire victims evicted by the Cebu City government from Sitio Warwick Barracks, Barangay Ermita asked the Regional Trial Court to reconsider its dismissal of the civil case for damages against Mayor Michael Rama and other city officials.

Roy and Emma Cabanlit, who represented the affected residents, filed a motion for reconsideration stating that they were not satisfied with the court ruling.

Regional Trial Court Judge Gilbert Moises dismissed the civil case on June 30. The court ruled that there was "no cause of action" or an act of a party violating the right of another.

But, the complainants said that they have sufficiently explained in their complaint the causes of action against the city officials.

According to the complainants, their stalls were destroyed without any due process of law one month after the fire hit the area despite them paying for it.

The complainants stated that eviction and demolition of occupants may only be allowed under situations enumerated under section 28 of Republic Act 7279 known as "Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992."

 It states, "Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed under the following situations: (a) When persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds; (b) When government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented; or (c) When there is a court order for eviction and demolition."

They said that in the present case, none of the enumerated situations were present when the defendants, with the use of force, violence and intimidation, summarily destroyed and demolished the abodes of the plaintiffs and drove them away.

"Clearly the plaintiffs were not occupying the esteros or other danger areas. There was no government infrastructure project with available funding that was about to be implemented. Worse there was no Court Order ordering the demolition," the motion for reconsideration states.

The court earlier ruled that the vendors/residents did not have an "existing right" over the lot.

According to the Proclamation No. 241 issued on May 13, 1964, the said area is reserved to market place purposes to be managed by the Cebu City government. It is not for sale, not for settlement.

But, the complainants argued that it is "untenable" because the eviction and demolition of occupants are prescribed under section 28 of Republic Act 7279 regardless of the purpose of the land.

"The dismissal of the case without trial - without giving the plaintiffs the opportunity to present their case free from technicalities, is like rubbing salt on their bruised tissues," the complainants said. — (FREEMAN)