Letter To The Editor: The Rallos case(Part 1)

Sir/Madam,

This letter is in response to the letter of Congressman Tomas R. Osmeña published with The FREEMAN on December 7, 2011 pertaining to the Case of Heirs of Fr. Vicente Rallos, et.al. vs. City of Cebu.

Contrary to the claim of Congressman Osmeña, he, unknown to the members of the Cebu City Council, met with the counsel of the Heirs of Fr. Vicente Rallos on November 12, 2001 wherein he offered the following proposals:

a.That Cebu City returns the two (2) parcels of land to the plaintiffs; and

b.That Cebu City pays the judgment amount in installment within a period of four years at P6 million a year for the first three years and with the balance beingpayable in full in the fourth year.

Attached is a certified true copy of the letter of Atty. Fortunato D. Veloso dated November 15, 2001.

The aforesaid meeting of Congressman Osmeña with the representatives of the Heirs of Fr. Rallos took place two months before he called some members of the Cebu City Council, including the undersigned, to discuss the issue of garnishment.

The undersigned came to know about the case only on December 28, 2001 (Friday, past 5 p.m.) when Ms. Fe Gaviola, Manager of Postal Bank visited the office and informed me of the existence of the case (assigned at the sala of Judge Gaviola) and that there was already a Notice of Garnishment from the Court Sheriff.She requested me to sponsor a resolution authorizing the City Mayor to sign a Compromise Agreement with the Heirs of Fr. Rallos; otherwise, they would release the garnished funds of the City Government, which were deposited with Postal Bank.I informed Ms. Fe Gaviola that I still had to inquire from the City Legal Office because I had no knowledge of the case and at the same time, the City Legal had not submitted any report to the Cebu City Council regarding said case.

I was so surprised why a Bank Manager should be the one to discuss the alleged proposed compromise agreement when the City Legal Officer had not made a recommendation / report to the City Council.This made me wary and concerned about the case.

It was only on January 8, 2002 wherein then Mayor Tomas Osmeña called the lawyer – city councilors to a meeting to discuss the “Notice of Garnishment.”It was during the said meeting that the undersigned came to know that Ms. Fe Gaviola of Postal Bank released the money of the City Government on the day she visited my office.

While we were discussing the “Notice of Garnishment,” the then City Legal Officer did not inform those present in the meeting that at the time, both parties filed their respective Motion for Reconsideration.We were made to understand then that the position of the City Government was a hopeless case because the period of time to file an Appeal already lapsed.

Aside from the amount garnished from Postal Bank, the Heirs of Fr. Vicente Rallos were able to garnish also the deposits with Equitable PCI Bank, Development Bank of the Philippines and Philippine National Bank for a total amount of P34,905,000.

Mr. Antonio Bellones in his Sheriff’s Return dated February 12, 2002 stated that the amount of P34,905,000 was delivered to the Plaintiffs and that the said amount represented the full satisfaction of the amount payable by the defendant City of Cebu.

Attached is a certified true copy of the Sheriff’s Return dated February 12, 2002.(to be continued)

Thank you.

Truly yours,

Atty. Jocelyn G. Pesquera

Member, Cebu City Council 1998 – 2007