Balyuan property case vs capitol CA junks Tacloban's plea to reverse ruling

TACLOBAN CITY, Philippines  - The Court of Appeals has dismissed the petition of the Tacloban City government for certiorari with prayer for injunctive relief seeking to overturn an earlier court decisions favoring the Leyte provincial government over the disputed Balyuan property in this city.

The CA said the city should have filed the petition in the same Regional Trial Court-Branch 8, presided by Judge Salvador Apurillo, that decided the case on June 1, 2011 and then on July 28, 2011 both in favor of the provincial government.

The Leyte provincial government last year asked the Tacloban City government to renew a memorandum of agreement between the two LGUs regarding the city’s occupancy of the so-called “Balyuan Property”, a 26-hectare property within the city where the City Hall and its many other offices are located.

The MOA, which had already expired, was signed by Leyte Governor Carlos Jericho Petilla and then Tacloban mayor Alfredo “Bejo” Romualdez Sr., father of the incumbent Mayor Alfred Romualdez.

Provincial attorney Imelda Nartea said the MOA was even prepared by city lawyers and had the imprimatur of the City Council but Mayor Alfred Romualdez allegedly refused to renew it and instead filed a complaint at the RTC to declare it null and void, and to cancel the province’s tax declaration over the property.

The RTC however dismissed Tacloban’s suit, and subsequently rejected also the latter’s motion for reconsideration. This prompted the city to elevate the case to the CA, claiming grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC judge.

The CA’s 19th Division, in its recent decision, however dismissed the petition of Tacloban, represented by the mayor, for lack of merit.

The CA resolution, dated February 21, 2012 and penned by Associate Justice Edgardo Delos Santos and concurred by Associate Justices Ramon Paul Hernando and Victoria Isabel Paredes, said the petition was “found to have several procedural infirmities.”

The CA said the petition “failed to show sufficient proof of service on the parties concerned specifically the affidavit evidencing service by registered mail; respondent court a quo was not served a copy of the petition; verification and certification of non-forum shopping failed to show the affiant’s competent evidence of identity; and verification and certification against forum shopping also failed to indicate the Notary Public’s notarial commission number, his place of commission and his office address.”  (FREEMAN)