Thursday, March 22, 2007 Jadewell 'dishonored' high court: councilor By Rimaliza Opiña
THE pay parking firm Jadewell continues to receive a beating from Baguio City Government officials.
Councilor Jose Molintas, in response to the slew of petitions filed by the parking firm, said it is Jadewell that has "humiliated" the Supreme Court (SC), not the city officials who have voted for the repeal of the Pay Parking Ordinance, in view of the violations they committed.
"Petitioners, through its officers, have deliberately made false statements under oath by withholding information that several cases had been filed relative to the implementation of the memorandum of agreement (MOA) which is in gross violation of SC Circular 4-94 on forum shopping and trifles with and mocks our judicial processes," Molintas said in a separate comment to the petition, supplemental petition, second supplemental petition and motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction filed by Jadewell.
The petitions involved Molintas's voting in favor of the repeal of the Pay Parking Ordinance, for tasking the City Legal Office (CLO) to serve the notice of rescission, for "improper" application before a local court of a search warrant, and for voting in favor of a resolution that declared spouses Rogelio and Norma Tan persona non grata in Baguio.
Jadewell filed its petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the City Government from making implementing the ordinance's rescission until their petition for contempt has been resolved.
But Molintas argued all actions done by the City Council and acting Mayor Reinaldo Bautista Jr. were anchored on the MOA, which Jadewell also used as basis in filing their petitions in court.
"If petitioner thinks that it can unilaterally make ineffective the MOA, the City Government too can treat the MOA terminated. For how can the city be forever bound by an agreement which the other party doesn't intent to respect?" said Molintas, adding that "respondents (city officials), too, have complaints against the implementation of the MOA and the City Council have invited petitioner on several occasions but unfortunately, as the records would bear, petitioner kept on flatly refusing to appear before the City Council."
The councilor pointed out that the SC is not the proper forum to try questions of facts and law regarding violations of the MOA but through a local court as spelled out in Item 13 (b) of the agreement.
