Thursday, July 17, 2008 Plea to defer garnishment denied
REGIONAL Trial Court (RTC) Judge Geraldine Faith Econg denied the Cebu City Government’s request to defer the garnishment of some P20 million of its funds.
In a July 8 resolution, Econg said that the court can no longer defer the garnishment order because notice has already been served to the four banks where the City Government’s funds are deposited.
In fact, Banco de Oro (BDO) already freezed P20 million of the City’s funds in response to the garnishment order served by court sheriff Antonio Bellones.
“This clearly shows that the garnishment had already been enforced. Thus, there is no more act which this court can defer. It is already deemed accomplished,” read Econg’s two-page resolution.
Had the City sought that the garnishment order be set aside, instead of asking for its deferment, it would have been a different story, she said.
Econg said in her resolution that “the matter could have been treated differently” if the City had done so.
“But since what is sought is only the deferment of an enforcement, the court could no longer grant such relief to plaintiff,” the resolution read.
Conference
The resolution arose from a chamber conference between the Palicte heirs and the City Government that was scheduled last month.
Econg noted, however, that Cebu City Attorney Rodolfo Golez and City Hall lawyer Joseph Bernaldez were not around at the time.
Meanwhile, wary of a P21-million disallowance from the Commission on Audit (COA), Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña has asked the City Attorney’s Office to exhaust all legal remedies to protect the City’s interest with regards to the Palicte property.
Osmeña said he does not want the City to pay yet for a property whose ownership is still being questioned at the Supreme Court (SC).
The mayor asked to be briefed on the developments of the case after learning that City Hall lawyers failed to attend a hearing on the City’s motion to defer the implementation of the garnishment order issued by the court.
The initial hearing on the motion to defer the garnishment order was last June 10. That day, Plaridel Palicte filed the Palictes’ comment on the motion.
Injunction
Palicte argued that “the deferment of the enforcement of the notice of garnishment partakes the nature of a restraining order or preliminary injunction.”
Palicte said the City did not indicate in its motion its willingness to put up a bond in case garnishment is deferred.
Aside from BDO, the garnishment order was served to Philippine Veterans Bank, Philippine Postal Bank and Development Bank of the Philippines.
In an earlier Sun.Star Cebu report, Bernaldez was quoted as saying that BDO’s move to freeze P20 million in City funds was “highly irregular”.
In its motion seeking deferment of the garnishment order, the City had argued that government funds cannot be seized through a garnishment order, according to a Supreme Circular.
Further, it argued that its funds may be seized for payment only in pursuance to an appropriation law.
The City expropriated the 5,295-hectare Palicte property in 2001 for its urban poor settlement project. The lot was pegged at P23,782,500.
During his news conference yesterday, Osmeña was advised by City Attorney Golez that until the SC decides on who the real owner of the property is, the money
covered by the garnishment order should be consigned to the court.
Although the Palicte heirs has been collecting from the City for the expropriated lot since 2001, City Hall was recently informed that the Estate of Don Filemon Sotto is also claiming ownership of the lot, which could be adverse to the interest of the City, he said.
“The city officials, including the honorable mayor, can be held liable if the City will pay the Palicte heirs now because we have already been informed of the adverse claim of the Estate of Don Filemon Sotto,” Golez told the news conference.
Osmeña said this would mean that COA will disallow a payment amounting to P21 million, the sum covered by the garnishment order.
A notice of disallowance means that officials responsbile for the release of government funds will be ordered to refund the City Government of the amount paid for an “irregular transaction.”
“We cannot (appropriate) because we might be given a disallowance because it has already been declared that there’s another claimant. If we give to this claimant (Palicte), we will be given a major disallowance because it’s still pending in the SC,” he said.
On their failure to attend the hearing, Golez explained that during a chamber conference last June 30, a hearing was scheduled last July 8 but he and other City Hall lawyers failed to attend it.
“While the judge was dictating the order that we will be meeting the following week... as to the date, I did not get it. I was expecting that a copy of the order stating the date of the hearing will be sent but I also did not get it,” Golez told the mayor yesterday.
“But I believe that in principle, the judge and the Palicte lawyers have already agreed to consign the money to the court while we don’t know yet who is the rightful owner of the property,” he said. (KAB/LCR)
