Ex-congressman Osmeña suffers another defeat

The late Senator Jose W. Diokno, as resource speaker in a seminar for trial lawyers, few decades ago, shared his thoughts on how to win cases.  His record of successes made him a most credible authority on the subject. He cited three essential factors to achieve victory in litigations. For this article though, I believe that two such elements are less relevant here.  According to the late senator, the most important thing a litigant must possess, if only to maximize the chance of winning, is that he must have a good cause.

In his discussion, Senator Diokno, described a good cause to be something that is just, fair, and honest. That function might have taken place in the distant past that my memory of it might be somewhat blurred, but I do recall that for a case to succeed, the person resorting to the courts of law must anchor his action on basic justice. He must not be motivated by selfish consideration. His aim must be to achieve the truth. A plaintiff files a case because he wants a legal remedy to an unjust act. It should be the intention of a complainant to uphold the law and not just simply to harass anyone.

I remember that exposition of the distinguished late senator when I heard the news that the case filed by ex Cebu City South District Congressman Tomas R. Osmeña, as plaintiff, against His Honor, Cebu City Mayor Michael L. Rama and the honorable members of the city council, as defendants, questioning the efforts of the city government to develop the area near and surrounding the mausoleum of Doña Pepang in Barangay Tejero, was, according to the city legal officer, Atty. Jerone Castillo, dismissed, the other day, by the court. With the dismissal of the case, the former legislator suffered another crushing defeat, in the eyes of thousands of Cebuanos. Even if we consider that the ex-legislator might still file a motion for the honorable court to reconsider its ruling, the initial impact of his loss is stinging.

The repercussions of the legal victory of Mayor Rama et al., are, pending possible appeal, far-reaching. First. I was informed that the court did not consider the former lawmaker a real party in interest. Jurisprudence tells us clearly that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest. Anyone who would be benefited or injured by the judgment is considered as that party in interest. Applying this concept in its proper perspective, it seemed therefore that the court might have found Mr. Osmeña to be stranger to the cause. He had nothing to do with the persons whose dwellings were apparently threatened by the planned development of Mayor Rama. "Sa binisaya pa, wa siya'y labut pero nag-apil-apil lang ug mangutana ta ngano man jud."

Second. I like to imagine that the former solon must have ingratiated himself to the families who were to be affected by the city project. He should be their hero of sort. By sallying forth to court, he must have shown to these concerned residents that he could win the case for them and save their homes from the harsh consequences to stem from development. If I were one of them who believed in his move, I would not know how to thank him enough. Yet, certainly, I would and should be counted as among his supporters should he venture back in politics. With that loss of his championing, however, would I not change my mind?

Third. When the ruling of the court did not favor the ex congressman, those who were convinced by his espousal would begin to question, not only his   leadership, but even his judgment calls. Their faith in him, once beyond doubt, could now be vastly eroded. They might now start to ask, why did he ever do that? It might not be entirely speculative for them to commence to unravel his motivations.

Why could he have assured them that their cause was just, fair and honest when eventually a magistrate would see it differently? They could even go farther to ask how many of his past actions, nay decisions, were wrong only that they were not brought before a cold and impartial tribunal such that no judgment could be properly pronounced?  Ah what such a legal defeat could adversely mean!