[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’‘CAPRICIOUS DECISION’
Nava: Court ruling voiding ordinance erroneous’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”][/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
ILOILO City – The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39 nullifying Iloilo City Regulation Ordinance N0-2014-049 was deficient of vital facts, violates forum shopping rules and due process of law, according to a city councilor.
The ruling in effect also nullified the franchise (Ordinance 2014-015) granted to Vallacar Transit Corp. to establish and operate a transport terminal in Barangay Camalig.
“The decision is capricious, whimsical and arbitrary,” according to Councilor Plaridel Nava.
Regulation Ordinance 2014-049 amended Regulation Ordinance 2013-3444 (Perimeter Boundary Ordinance) that identified several barangays as locations for transport terminals. It included barangays Camalig and Buhang among the barangays were transport terminals can also be established.
Nava, who authored the ordinance, lamented that Judge Victorino Oliveros Maniba Jr. dismissed a motion of the city government to consolidate the case which was already heard by RTC Branch 29 prior to the filing of another case by another group of persons in RTC Branch 39.
“The case filed by Juna Labordo and North Central Transport Terminal, Inc. involved a similar issue – Nullity of Ordinance with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order – which Branch 29 had acquired prior jurisdiction,” Nava said.
FORUM SHOPPING
The plaintiffs violated the rule on forum shopping when they filed their case with RTC Branch 39, said Nava, considering that the controversy involved the same cause of action and issue.
The court should have dismissed it outright, he said.
“Kon tani wala na damu nga controversy kon gin consolidate ang duha ka kaso kay parehas lang ang issue. Wala pa na-complicate tani,” the main author of the ordinance said.
“Contrary to Judge Maniba’s Sept. 26, 2016 decision that the Ordinance was hastily passed to favor Ceres bus lines, records show that we followed the procedures according to our rules. In fact we have a list of people who attended the hearing,” said Nava.
The city government’s defense could have been strengthened and ably defended, too, had the City Legal Office invited him to act as witness, added the councilor.
“Wala nila ako gin invitar nga ako lang ang makapapag-on sang kaso,” lamented Nava.
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
According to the councilor, the complainants wanted to nullify Ordinance 2014-015 that gives a franchise to Ceres buses to put up its own terminal in Barangay Camalig but they failed to include the bus company as party defendant, or party having interest in the case.
“For failure to include Ceres, the court decision has not acquired jurisdiction over the bus company and it cannot enforce it. That is a big error,” Nava said.
“It is a weak decision,” he added.
BRANCH 29 DECISION
Judge Gloria Madero of RTC Branch 29, in her Decision dated May 13, 2016, denied the petition of North Central Transport Terminal, Inc. seeking to nullify Regulation Ordinance N0-2014-015 due to lack of validity in the issuance of franchise to Vallacar Transit Corp. operator of Ceres buses.
“Added to this is the fact that the validity of Regulation Ordinance 2013-472 was not challenged. It is not subject of this dispute although there was a mention of an irregularity in the issuance to pave the way for the ordinance granting Vallacar’s franchise. As this is not disputed, it remains valid and binding,” Madero said.
The Ordinance explicitly states that the bus terminal shall be used exclusively for and limited only to Ceres buses and its passengers. It does not state that other transport companies are prohibited from establishing their own terminals in the same barangay.
“Anybody can put up his own terminal in specified places as public interest and welfare so dictate. It is the right of the city to grant franchises to qualified individuals and companies,” Nava added.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The city government can still appeal the adverse decision of RTC, Branch 39, according to Nava.
“It is not yet final and executor,” he said.
If the motion for reconsideration is denied, the city government can go to higher courts and it may take many years to get a final verdict.
FINAL AND EXECUTORY
On the other hand, the decision rendered by Branch 29 giving a franchise to Ceres buses is already final and executory as there is no motion for reconsideration filed by the North Central Transport Terminal, Inc.
“Giving a franchise to Ceres is like a permanent right for Ceres,” Nava said.
APPEAL TO SC
Meanwhile, Ceres legal counsel Tranquilino Gale said he will go to the Supreme Court to question the decision of Judge Maniba as well as to seek other legal reliefs considering that his client is a party in interest although it was not given a chance to defend itself./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
