THE legal battle between MetroState Realty Corporation and City Engineer Virginia Rosario continues even if the Regional Trial Court has already denied the latter’s motion for reconsideration on the Court decision on October 22, 2007 ordering defendant Rosario to issue a building permit to the company.

City Legal Officer George Mejia, in behalf of Rosario, opposed a motion filed by the counsel of MetroState seeking execution of the decision issued by RTC Judge Rolando Mislang of Branch 42 pending appeal.

This was in connection with the   civil case filed by MetroState against Rosario for her refusal to issue a building permit.

Mejia , in his opposition dated December 12, 2007 to the motion filed by lawyer Francisco Baraan III on December 7, 2007, asked Mislang  that  the  Court  deny the motion for execution pending appeal “for utter lack of merit”.

Before this, Mejia already filed a notice of appeal soon after Judge Mislang denied his motion for reconsideration on the decision of the court that directed the city engineer to issue a building permit to MetroState.

He made it clear in the notice that they are appealing the decision of the Court before the Court of Appeals on the ground that the said decision and Order are contrary to law and the facts of the case.

In his motion, Baraan asserted that the order of execution pending appeal is pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which states that the Court, may in its discretion, order execution of judgment or final order even before the expiration of the period to appeal.

Baraan said the execution of judgment only involves the issuance by the defendant City Engineer, in her capacity as City Building Official, of a building permit, adding that no injury will be suffered by the defendant if the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, executes the judgment.

On the other hand, he said, the plaintiff suffers irreparable injury if the building permit remains unissued and the construction of the project is stalled.

INEFFECTIVE

Contending that the plaintiff has already poured substantial investment into the project, Baraan argued that the lapse of time would make the ultimate judgment practically ineffective.

In opposing Baraan’s motion,   Mejia declared that the appeal taken by the defendant is not dilatory and that the plaintiff failed to state sufficient good reason to justify the execution of the judgment pending appeal.

Among others, Mejia argued that the plaintiff has not obtained a clear legal right from the contract dated January 20, 2007 entered into by and between the plaintiff and the City of Dagupan represented by then Mayor Benjamin Lim.

Citing a Supreme Court decision in City of Quezon vs Lexber Incorporated, Mejia said that the Chief Executive of a local government unit may enter into contracts on behalf of the latter as provided for in Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7160. But the Chief Executive must secure authorization from the local sanggunian.

In the absence of such authority, Mejia said, the mayor’s act is ultra viris and does not bind the City of Dagupan.

Mejia also noted the plaintiff’s claim that it will suffer irreparable injury if the building permits remain unissued and the construction of the project stalled.

But, he said,  there is no one to blame except the plaintiff itself  because it started with the  construction of the proposed project without any building permit issued by the Building Official, and even without any prior authorization from the Sangguniang Panlungsod.—LM

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments