PAO chief asks dismissal of public lawyers’ petition

The country’s chief public attorney yesterday requested the Regional Trial Court to dismiss the amended petition of two Cebu-based public lawyers who wanted to stop their supposed transfer to the Public Attorney’s Office in Barili.

It was PAO chief Persida Rueda-Acosta herself who filed a motion at RTC-Branch 11 to expunge from the records of the case the amended petition filed by public lawyers Elisa Porio and Carmelita Dacanay.

Porio and Dacanay were among the public lawyers who complained about the alleged questionable activities of their regional head in Central Visayas citing “an escalation of abusive, oppressive, coercive, vindictive acts and immoral, unbecoming conduct.”

Pending the court’s ruling, the court had stopped the transfer of both Porio and Dacanay to Barili. Porio has been the head of the Cebu City PAO division, and Dacanay has been the administrative officer of the PAO regional office.

Porio and Dacanay brought the matter to court, hoping that it will prevent Acosta from implementing her order to reassign them to the PAO in Barili, a town 61 kilometers south of Cebu City.

Both insisted that the order to transfer them to Barili had something to do with an earlier petition they filed against regional public attorney Maria G-Ree Calinawan.

Calinawan and Acosta however countered that Porio and Dacanay will be transferred to Barili for reasons of exigency of the service, and upon the recommendation of Calinawan herself.

Records of the case showed that Porio and Dacanay had already filed their original petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction, but when the case was heard last March 27, the two moved for an amended petition.

Their decision to submit an amended petition – supported with additional arguments – was meant to strengthen their case hoping to secure a favorable court decision, they said.

Acosta however argued that, based on the rules, “substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court, but such leave may be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to delay.”

In moving for the dismissal of the amended petition, Acosta contended that the filing of the amended petition, without leave of court, violates a provision as provided for under section 3, Rule 10 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedures.

A law dictionary defines “leave of court” as the “grant by the court of something, which, without such grant it would have been unlawful to do.”

Acosta added that the rules stated further that: “Orders of the court upon the matters provided in this section shall be made upon motion filed in court and after notice to the adverse party, and an opportunity to be heard.” — Rene U. Borromeo/RAE