Operator: City erred in closing casino

CEBU - The operator of the casino at the Rajah Park Hotel which was ordered closed by the Cebu City government last month has asked the court to reconsider its ruling affirming the validity of the local government’s action citing alleged violations of procedures.

Waz Lian Management Philippines Inc. and Myall Group Ltd. claimed that Regional Trial Court Branch 16 judge Sylva Aguirre-Paderanga violated procedures of the Revised Rules of Court when she dismissed their petition for the declaration of nullity of the closure order and mandatory injunction with damages.

The petitioners, through lawyer Felix Chan, said that Paderanga also violated their right to due process when their application for status quo ante and preliminary injunction was not considered before dismissing the case.

The petitioners said that their motion for inhibition was not even considered by Paderanga when she dismissed the case last October 6 for “lack of cause of action.”

In their 13-page motion for reconsideration, the petitioners reiterated their motion for Paderanga to inhibit from handling the case for allegedly having prejudged it when she dismissed before hearing the application for preliminary injunction. 

WLMPI and MGL filed a civil case for nullity of closure order, injunction and damages against the Cebu City government last month after their slot machine operation at Rajah Park Hotel was closed.

But Paderanga dismissed the case for lack of cause of action saying the complainants are not the real party in interest because it should be the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation.

MGL owns majority of WLMPI, which is among the corporations that operates slot machine arcades in the Philippines.

The petitioners said that the dismissal of the case on grounds that it does not state a cause of action without a motion to dismiss from the respondents is “highly irregular.”

They said that it has violated the procedure under the Revised Rules of Court, which requires a motion to dismiss from the respondents.

The petitioners said that there was no motion to dismiss filed by respondents Mayor Tomas Osmeña and city attorney Rodolfo Golez who represents the city government.

“The Honorable court committed a totally unprocedural conduct when it proceeded to dismiss the complaint outright without a motion to dismiss from the respondents,” the petitioners said.

According to the complainants, when the complaint states no cause of action, the correct procedure would have been to file a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 1 paragraph g Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of Court.

However, Paderanga allegedly did not wait for a motion to dismiss, instead, dismissed the case outright. They added that the judge can only dismiss the case outright when it appears that it has no jurisdiction over the case.

The petitioners also sought the reconsideration of the order that justified the closure order claiming that the court’s interpretation of the provisions of the PAGCOR Charter was unwarranted. —Fred P. Languido/BRP (THE FREEMAN)