City officials file appeal, TRO at CA

CEBU, Philippines - The Cebu City Legal Office has filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with temporary restraining order before the Court of Appeals over the administrative complaint filed against the city officials on the P20,000 calamity assistance distributed in 2013.

City Attorney Jerone Castillo, lead counsel of the City Officials, said the petition was filed before the Office of the President and Department of Interior and Local Government last March 2.

Lawyer Reymelio Delute sued Mayor Michael Rama, Vice Mayor Edgardo Labella, and City Councilors Nestor Archival Sr., Mary Ann de los Santos, David Tumulak, Nendell Hanz Abella, Sisinio Andales, Alvin Arcilla, Roberto Cabarrubias, Ma. Nida Cabrera, Gerardo Carillo, Alvin Dizon, Eugenio Gabuya Jr., and Noel Wenceslao for grave misconduct and abuse of authority for distributing calamity assistance to all City Hall employees and officials.

The complaint stemmed from the approval of City Ordinance 2379 in December 2013 that granted P20,000 in calamity assistance to city officials and employees.

In the 28-page petition, petitioners asked the Court of Appeals to make the writ of preliminary injunction permanent and to annul the proceedings, including all the order and notices issued by DILG over the administrative case.

Petitioners include Rama, Labella, Tumulak, Abella, Carillo, and Wenceslao.

They said that the Office of the President and the DILG, and their agents acting on their behalf, should be forever inhibited from taking cognizance of the case, saying that both offices lack jurisdiction to hear the case.

Castillo said that they have been consistent with their position that both offices have no jurisdiction.

He said that counsels of the petitioners pointed out serious defects in the proceedings like the “ruling” of DILG hearing officer Christopher Tiu who said the complaint was on the implementation of the ordinance, and not on the validity of it.

“Petitioners have no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus, they are compelled to resort to this Honorable Court through the extraordinary relief of certiorari and prohibition to seek redress from the assailed proceedings and Order, which were issued without jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,” the petition read.

The issues raised in the petition were; whether or not the Office of the President and DILG gravely erred in assuming jurisdiction over the administrative complaint; whether or not Tiu gravely erred in allowing complainant substantially change the theory of his case midway through the proceedings; and whether or not Tiu gravely erred in orally denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and refusing to categorically answer when he will issue the written order of denial.

On February 25, the city officials walked out from the hearing room after Tiu decided to deny the motion for reconsideration that they filed.

The following day, the city officials snubbed the marking of exhibits or evidence of the case.

Castillo said the legal counsels of the petitioners are still preparing for further pleadings to be filed before the Office of the Ombudsman.

These pleadings include appeal for the hearing officer to inhibit from the case, suspension of further hearings, and possible grave misconduct on the part of the hearing officer. — Jean Marvette A. Demecillo/ATO (FREEMAN)