THE Court of Appeals has denied the motion for reconsideration filed jointly by the Magic Group of Companies and local government officials on the use of a public property located at the center of Malasiqui town.

THE CA Eighth Division previously reversed a 2012 decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Carlos City that upheld a municipal ordinance and resolution on the Municipality of Malasiqui’s lease contract with the Magic Group of Companies for the use of the lot as a site for a shopping  mall.

The denial of the appeal was contained in a two-page resolution signed by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion Vicente.

Respondents-appellees in this case were Mayor Armando Domantay Sr., former Vice Mayor Mariano Espinoza and Councilors Noel Geslani (now vice mayor), Pedro Opguar, Roberto Sanchez, Alfredo Palaganas, Joey Soriano, Ildefonso Veloria, Sonny Domantay, Canuto Mendoza and Harfe Padilla, all of Malasiqui, and former Dagupan City Mayor Benjamin Lim, owner of the Magic Group.

The opposition to the lease agreement was filed by Mario Armas, a private citizen with former Malasiqui Vice Mayor Osmundo Lambino as intervenor-appellant.

Armas initially lost his case in a decision dated April 20. 2010 of Branch 57 of the RTC in San Carlos City, but he filed an appeal before the CA, which reversed the decision.

The CA decision also set aside and declared as invalid and contrary to law Municipal Ordinance No. 005-2003 and Municipal Resolution No. 002-2009 passed by the municipality of Malasiqui that authorized the mayor to sign the lease contract,

The CA further ordered all parties concerned from acting pursuant to the ordinance, resolution  and contract and from implementing and executing these.

In denying the motion for reconsideration, the Eighth Division ruled that a careful reading of the respondents-appellees’ arguments in their motion showed that they raised new matters which were not discussed before the court, nor in the appeal.

The resolution reads: “Further, after admitting in their Brief that the subject contract of lease would show that it is a build-operate-transfer scheme, respondents-appellees now make a sudden turn around and claim that this Court erred when it viewed the project as one with the characteristics of a build-operate-transfer scheme”.

It continued: “With respect to the other  matters raised by respondents-appellees, we have already passed upon, discussed and resolved the same in Our assailed Decision”.

The CA judges said in their decision that “we find no cogent or compelling reason to modify or reverse Our decision dated December 12, 2012”.

Back to Homepage

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments