CEBU, Philippines - To stop further action from the court, Cebu City is seeking a preliminary injunction against the defendants of the Rallos case.
Lawyer Jade Ponce said the city aims to hold “everything in a status quo pending hearing of the main petition for the nullity of judgment.”
Today is the hearing of the preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals.
“Without the preliminary injunction, in view of the applicant (City), if the enforcement pushes through and the City loses the P133 million, it will make the whole petition moot,” he said.
Earlier, the city government through Mayor Michael Rama filed a petition for the nullity of judgment.
In the petition, Rama asked the appellate court to render a decision citing the judgment null and void directing them to pay P133 million for compensation of the Rallos property used as public road by the city government.
Rama claimed the lot was donated by the late Rallos to the City of Cebu through an existing document and a court order way back in the 1940’s.
The defendants of the case were Judge James Stewart Ramon Himalaloan of Regional Trial Court Branch 9 and Sheriff Eugenio Fuentes.
Likewise, Ponce said they aim to get back over P56 million the city has already paid the Rallos heirs.
Ponce said the compromise agreement between the City and the Rallos ancestors is not ordinary evidence.
“This is a decision of the court. It is the court-owned record. It’s there in its own archive. That’s why we are very confident about this case,” he said.
However, he said if the court will deny the application for preliminary injunction the city will lose more.
“The P133 million is so big it can practically affect the operations of the city in so far as extending basic services and infrastructure projects is concerned. If the city loses such a huge amount, the effect to the city’s finances will resonate for years to come,” he said.
He added if the Court of Appeals will grant the injunction, the Rallos heirs are not going to suffer as they already received P56 million.
Earlier, the Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order effective for 60 days against the defendants of the case after finding sufficient evidence. — (FREEMAN)