Court denies CH bid to stop garnishment

CEBU, Philippines - The Regional Trial Court has denied all attempts from the Cebu City government to stop the implementation of a higher court decision directing the local government unit to pay the heirs of Rev. Father Vicente Rallos the amount of over P133 million as compensation for its property that the city has used as public road.

RTC Branch 9 acting Judge James Stewart Ramon Himalaloan yesterday denied the motion to quash the writ of execution and to set aside the notice of garnishment. The court likewise dismissed the city government’s bid to secure a status quo order.

Himalaloan said he cannot disturb the ruling of the higher court as it was already declared final and executory.

“A judge cannot amend a final decision, more so where the decision was promulgated by an appellate court. Judges should respect the orders, resolution and decisions of higher courts, specially the highest court,” he ruled.

According to Himalaloan, the lower court has to abide by the decision of the higher court and has no jurisdiction to amend the ruling of a superior court.

The court has given court sheriff Eugenio Fuentes Jr. the authority to continue the implementation of the writ of execution and the notice of garnishment against the City of Cebu.

Fuentes said the city government has the option to satisfy the order of the court. He said the city government can pay the Ralloses the P133,469,962.55 in cash or certified bank check or any form of payment. It can also choose from any of its properties to satisfy the money judgment.

Mayor Michael Rama, however, said the city lawyers will file a motion for reconsideration.

“Our lawyers must do what they think will be best but definitely, this is not the end of it. We will continue to have the matter tackled,” Rama said.

The Mayor said he believes they have strong contentions enough to make them fight for the case until the end.

“Besides, it is very clear that first, before they can garnish there must be an appropriation. Second, there must be a COA (Commission on Audit) approval. Whoever will allow (the garnishment), I will not hesitate to take action against them for doing beyond what’s allowable,” Rama said.

Meanwhile, Rama said it is not necessary to seek the authority of the council for all stipulations that the executive will undertake with regards to the Rallos case.

He said the council must consider that in answering, there is a reglementary period so they cannot waste time.

Rama said that if the council wants to help, they can approach the mayor.

“If they have suggestions, I am a text away, unless they want to be part of the City Attorney’s Office,” he said.

Last week, the council passed a resolution telling the mayor to seek prior authorization from the council for any stipulation and admission that may be entered into by the city mayor on behalf of the City of Cebu in relation to the case.

The council cited Section 455 of the Local Government Code, which says the city mayor shall represent the city in all its business transactions and sign on its behalf all bonds, contracts and obligations upon authority of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.

Earlier, the court issued a notice of garnishment against the City of Cebu to pay the judgment debt in the amount of P133,469,962.55 as compensation of the lot in Sambag 1 that is being used as public road.

However, such claims were vehemently opposed by the City of Cebu.

The city attorneys told the court that the subject property was donated by the Ralloses to the City of Cebu on September 22, 1940 in a “convenio” or comprise agreement.

“Any road to be opened and at the expense of Margarito Rallos and Fr. Vicente Rallos and their heirs and assigns and at the expense of Numeriana Rallos, her heirs and assigns, any of the lots subject to this agreement, is intended for the use of the public in general and will be donated to the City of Cebu whether it will accept it,” Convenio reads in English translation. The city attorneys’ likewise said the court cannot garnish the City of Cebu’s accounts as there is an existing Commission on Audit (COA) Circular No. 2000-2001 which states that all garnishment and writs of execution must first be filed before the COA.

However, if rejected by the COA, the claimant can elevate the same to the Supreme Court.

Rama said the bank account balances are duly budgeted to cover the city’s operating expenditures for personal services, maintenance and other operating cost, capital outlays and

continuing appropriations. These after the court issued a notice of garnishment to the banks were the funds of the City deposited.

Based on records, Sheriff Antonio Bellones of RTC Branch 9 had already made several garnishments against the public funds belonging to the City of Cebu in 2001, 2002 and 2009 amounting to P56,196,369.42. — Mylen P. Manto and Jessica Ann R. Pareja/FPL (THE FREEMAN)