Friday, November 07, 2008 Another judge loses his Capitol stipend
ANOTHER Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge has reportedly lost his monthly allowance from the Provincial Government, allegedly following his handling of a case that involved the Capitol.
An official who has access to both parties confirmed Wednesday that the P6,000 monthly Capitol stipend for Judge Leopoldo Cañete, presiding judge of the Barili RTC, was cut at the same time Judge Bienvenido Saniel of the RTC in Cebu City lost his stipend.
“But there is a reason for all of this and I believe that it has not yet been discussed well,” said the source, who asked not to be named.
The move by two judges to return their allowances in sympathy with Saniel has diverted discussions, the ranking official said.
“The issue has become muddled and has not really benefited all the parties concerned,” the source said.
The two judges reportedly jumped the gun on all other Cebu City judges who had agreed to return their allowances in a closed-door meeting, a day after the report on Saniel losing his allowance broke out last Oct. 24.
The Provincial Government, however, has never confirmed it ordered the cancellation of the allowances for both judges.
When Sun.Star Cebu went to the Office of the Governor last Oct. 23 for confirmation, Capitol consultant on information Rory Jon Sepulveda said he would look into it. A statement on this matter has yet to be released.
Complaint
Cañete handled the damages complaint that Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia filed against ABS-CBN broadcaster Leo Lastimosa, a critic of the Capitol’s multi-million-peso Cebu International Convention Center (CICC), and dismissed it with finality last April.
The dismissal was based on venue.
The governor filed the case in Barili town, saying she is a voter of and has a house in Dumanjug, which is part of Cañete’s jurisdiction as the presiding judge of the Barili RTC.
Lastimosa, when he sought the dismissal of the case, said that while the governor might have a residence in the town, she actually lives elsewhere. He said picking the venue constituted harassment because he will have to travel to Barili every time there is a hearing.
Question
Cañete’s order of dismissal did not resolve the question of where the governor’s actual residence is, whether she can file her suit there and whether her act of filing in Barili was to harass Lastimosa.
While he cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Time Inc. v. Reyes, which highlighted the need to avoid “unnecessary harassment” of journalists, Cañete’s ruling dwelt more on how the governor’s choice of Barili could impair public service.
He said he cannot give due course to the suit because he needs “to protect the interest of the public service.” Hearing the case in Barili would force the governor to travel to and from the municipality, leaving the seat of her office, just to attend to a case, he said.
Judge Saniel, for his part, dismissed the declaratory relief case that the Capitol filed against the appointment of businessman Joel Mari Yu to the Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD) board.
The Capitol contended that it was the Provincial Government, not Cebu City, which had the authority to appoint members of the MCWD board.
It also asked the court to consider a provision of the MCWD charter that says the mayor has the power to appoint members of the board but only if 70 percent of MCWD’s consumers come from Cebu City.
According to the source, part of the evidence in the suit was a certification of the MCWD that only 61.28 percent of its consumers come from Cebu City. The rest were from the province.
Saniel dismissed the case, saying Yu had already been appointed and that breach has already occurred. Citing Sec. 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, he said the remedy of declaratory relief is only available prior to breach.
The source, however, said that Sec. 6 of the same rule states that in case breach has occurred, the incident can be converted into an ordinary civil action, with the parties concerned being asked to submit the proper pleadings.
The source lamented that some judges are acting bitterly toward one other because two judges jumped the gun and said they’ll return their allowances, leaving other judges who want to resolve things without having to lose needed income looking selfish.
The 2002 Supreme Court ruling in Dadole vs. the Commission on Audit (COA) declares that there is nothing wrong, improper or illegal with judges receiving allowances from local governments.
The ruling stemmed from a case in Mandaue City, where then Executive Judge Mercedes Gozo-Dadole, later appointed to the Court of Appeals, together with Judges Ulric Cañete, Agustine Vestil, Temistocles Boholst, Vicente Panilag and Wilfredo Dagatan contested a COA ruling that cut additional allowances received by Mandaue City judges.
According to the ruling, local government units are free to allocate funds for such allowances. (KNR)
