Judge junks TRO bid, scolds settlers’ lawyers for not telling them the real score

Dura lex sed lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law.

With this legal maxim, Judge Estela Alma Singco of the Cebu City Regional Trial Court Branch 12 yesterday denied the petition of 20 settlers who appealed to the court to stop the demolition of their houses built on a private-owned property in sitio San Miguel, barangay Apas, Cebu City.

The judge, who at some point during yesterday’s hearing blew her top over the arguments of the settlers’ lawyer,  said there is no reason for her to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) or an injunction because the petitioners could not prove their ownership of the lot claimed by Aletha Suico Magat.

“Much as I want to help, I go by what is provided by the rules. I don’t want you to settle for false hope. Maluoy ko ninyo apan unsa man ang akong mabuhat? Ipa-agi man gud ta ni og proseso. Balaod ang atong sundon. (I pity all of you, but what can I do? We have to abide by the legal process. We have laws to follow),” the judge told the settlers present during the hearing yesterday morning.

“Naglaum mo nga makakuha og kaayohan apan angay nga mangita na lang gyud mo og inyong lugar kay dili man na inyong yuta ang gitukuran sa inyong mga balay karon. (You’re hoping to get something good out of this court but I tell you it would be better if you look for another place to live because you do not own the lot where your houses presently stand),” the lady judge added.

The denial of the petition for the issuance of a TRO and injunction is without prejudice of the settlers’ appeal pending before Cebu City RTC Judge Alexander Acosta of Branch 9.

A total of 20 people filed a petition before Judge Singco, hoping that the court will stop the demolition of their houses. Five of them were not around during the hearing yesterday.

Singco requested Collin Rossel, head of the Cebu City’s Division for the Welfare of the Urban Poor (DWUP), to help the settlers find a temporary relocation site.

“Sometimes, clients are misled to believe that they own the property. But when the issues were heard before the MTCC (Municipal Trial Court in Cities), the claimant was able to present a title to prove ownership of the lot. On the contrary, you could not present any proof,” she added.

ACTUAL EXISTING RIGHTS

Judge Pamela Baring-Uy, presiding judge of MTCC Branch 6 earlier ruled in favor of Magat whose claim over two adjacent lots measuring 17,614 square meters has been supported by a Supreme Court ruling.

Singco explained that an injunction can only be issued if petitioners have “actual existing rights to the property in question ”and that they will “suffer irreparable injury if their houses will be demolished.”

In this case, she said the petitioners failed to show any proof that they have right to the property being questioned.

In an interview after the hearing, lawyer Mark Anthony Gaviola, one of Magat’s counsel, said they will confer with the sheriff on whether or not to resume the demolition today.

“Considering that no TRO or injunction was issued by the court, most likely we will proceed with the demolition tomorrow (March 20),” he told reporters.

DISMANTLE OR DEMOLISH

Before the proceedings adjourned yesterday, Singco gave the settlers two remaining options to think about: voluntarily dismantle their houses or face forced demolition.

The judge said there’s no other option left since, without any TRO or injunction, the demolition can certainly resume.

After consulting their lawyers, the 15 settlers who were present during the hearing told the court that they will voluntarily dismantle their houses and that they will take the financial assistance offered by Magat’s lawyers.

“Kami lang tang-tang sa among balay aron dili ma-damage. (Allow us to voluntarily remove our houses so our things won’t get damaged),” one of the settlers said.

To formalize what was agreed upon, the settlers were made to sign a written undertaking before the judge.

Each of the 15 settlers right away received P25,000 in cash from Magat who delivered the money through his lawyers. Another P25,000 will be given once the settlers  completely remove their houses.

They have until April 15, 2014 to voluntarily vacate the Magat’s property.

To make sure that the lot owner will likewise comply with the agreement, the payment of the P25,000 balance shall be coursed through the court. This means that the settlers will claim the money from the court.

“You’re the only group of petitioners who were given this privilege of taking home P50,000 while voluntarily dismantling your houses,” the judge said.

Magat’s lawyer, Allan Siu, said his client badly wants to take control of the lot before she dies.

“My client is suffering from stage 4 cancer. It’s her desire to take the lot while she’s still in this planet. We were advised by our client not to accede to the plea of the settlers to extend their stay,” Siu said.

Other settlers who are not party to the case can still claim P20,000 to P25,000 each if they decide to voluntarily dismantle their homes.

FIGHT GOES ON

Lawyer Feliciano Payot, one of the settlers’ counsels, told the court that the Cebu provincial government actually owns the lot claimed by Magat.

But Judge Singco said Payot’s assertion remains to be proven.

“Let that be for now. But there is a decision of the Supreme Court that the owner of the lot is Magat. You’re saying the province is the owner of the lot. That is a mere speculation. I feel for this people. I know how it is to be ejected. But we have to follow the law,” she said.

Singco said the provincial government has to sue Magat to take over the property. But the judge said doing so would take time.

“In the meantime, there’s no case filed yet,” she said.

Although 15 of his clients received the financial assistance from Magat, Payot said they will continue to fight to prove that the settlers are entitled to own the lot.

“Tuloy ang laban. (The fight continues),” Payot told reporters.

CONFUSION

At the start of yesterday’s proceedings, the judge called the petitioners one by one and asked them if they indeed filed an appeal before the RTC to contest the verdict of the MTCC that ruled in favor of Magat.

Most of settlers said they didn’t file an appeal while a few said they just failed to pay the supersedeas bond which is posted by the appealing party to compensate the opposing camp for the legal expenses in case it wins in the appealed case.

Singco took the word of the settlers and said there’s actually no reason for her to stop the demolition especially that the petitioners, in the first place, did not file a petition for appeal—a requirement before they can ask the court to issue a TRO or an injunction order.

“I want to clarify this with you. You don’t want your homes to be demolished yet more than half of you did not file an appeal. How can you ask for a relief when you did not even file an appeal?,” the judge said.

The settlers’ counsel insisted that all his clients had filed an appeal before the RTC and that the latter may just have misunderstood the question of the judge.

Singco exchanged arguments with Payot before the judge asked for a proof to show that the petitioners actually filed an appeal.

“You heard them Atty. Payot. They said they did not file an appeal. Don’t mislead your clients. You heard your clients. Your clients confirmed that they didn’t filed an appeal. How can you ask for a relief when you did not even file an appeal?,” the judge told the lawyer.

Payot showed official receipts to prove that the petitioners filed an appeal. However, the names on the receipts didn’t match with the names of the petitioners. The judge gave the lawyer time to check with RTC 9, where the main petition for appeal is pending, to verify whether or not his claim is true.

Rosell, the Cebu City DWUP head, also got a tongue-lashing from the court.

Rosell, who is not a party to the case but was allowed by the court to speak during the hearing for “humanitarian reasons,” said they don’t have a relocation site for the settlers yet.

But the judge told him that it has always been the claim of the city, in all demolition cases, that it has no relocation site for the settlers.

“Attorney Rosell, you have the responsibility to re-locate them (settlers). The city didn’t even file an intervention in this case. You just appear in court. Help them find a temporary relocation site,” Singco told the DWUP chief.