CA reaffirms decision voiding lease contract
MAGIC- MALASIQUI VENTURE
THE Court of Appeals (CA) has denied the motion for reconsideration filed by former Dagupan City Mayor Benjamin Lim et al on the lease contract extended by the local government of Malasiqui for a municipal government property to the Magic Group of Companies owned by Lim.
Lim appealed the Appellate Court’s decision dated December 12, 2012 reversing the resolution of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Carlos City on the case.
The RTC gave a go signal to the lease contract based on a resolution but the CA declared the resolution invalid.
The CA resolution dated July 17, 2013 signed by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, chairperson of the eighth division, states that a careful reading of respondents-appellees’ arguments in their motion shows that they raised new matters which were not discussed before the lower court, nor in the appeal.
In denying the motion, the eighth division quoted a Supreme Court ruling in Quezon City Government vs. Dacara, which states, “It is well settled that points of law, theories or arguments not brought out in the original proceedings cannot be considered on review or appeal. To consider the belatedly raised arguments at this stage of the proceedings would trample on the basic principles of fair play, justice and due process.”
Lim’s co-respondent-appellees are Malasiqui Mayor Armando Domantay, former Vice Mayor Mariano Espinoza and Councilors Noel Geslani, now vice mayor of the town, Pedro Opguar, Roberto Sanchez, Alfredo Palaganas, Joey Soriano, Ildefonso Veloria, Sonny Domantay, Canuto Mendoza and Harfe Padilla.
Except for Domantay, the officials of Malasiqui enacted Municipal Resolution No. 002 2009, which the appellate court declared as invalid, contrary to law and therefore null and void.
The petition against Lim and the Malasiqui officials was filed by Mario Armas as petitioner-appellee with Osmundo Lambino as intervenor-appellant,
Armas questioned the enactment of the resolution as the municipal council at that time did not have a quorum.
In denying the motion for reconsideration, the eighth division said: ” x x x 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.”
Share your Comments or Reactions
Powered by Facebook Comments
