By Mortz C. Ortigoza
SAN CARLOS CITY – It seems the mall of the Magic Group of
Companies (MGC) in Malasiqui town will continue to operate after the Regional
Trial Court’s judge here said that the petitions of writ of demolition and writ
of execution filed by Mario Armas were misdirected.
 |
| The under siege mall of Magic Group of Companies in Malasiqui, Pangasinan. |
Judge Renato Pinlac explained that he could not just accede
to the petition of petitioner Armas because the decision of the Court of
Appeals, after the case was remanded to it by the Supreme Court, was to
invalidate Ordinance No. 005-2003 and
Resolution No. 002-2009.
The Ordinance, passed by the Sanggunian Bayan
(town legislature), was known as “An ordinance withdrawing from public use to
private use the area of 1, 800 square meters from the 10, 743 square meters lot
located at Poblacion owned by the municipality of Malasiqui”.
The legal dispute with the ordinance started when it was not
approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (provincial board) but instead
remanded to the town council in 2004 where its members, despite the absence of
public hearing, bidding, and the required two-third votes, railroaded it by
empowering Mayor Armando Domantay to negotiate with MGC for the lease of
property through Resolution No. 002-2009.
Consequently, it led Domantay to execute a 40-year contract
of lease with Magic.
But Armas petitioned the act of the mayor and the then SB
members with writ of injunction but the Regional Trial Court here under Judge
Emma Bauzon denied him.
When he appealed to the CA, the appellate court reversed in 2014 the decision of the judge.
But Judge Pinlac, the successor of Judge Bauzon, said he
could not just grant the petitioner his writs of execution and demolition
because Armas’ prayer to the CA was for injunction.
“Because of that the
sheriff could not do any positive act but merely declares the (ordinance) and
resolution invalid,” he explained.
Pinlac said he could not just acquiesced to the petition of
Armas to demolish because the petition tried by the C.A was not a real property.
“This does not involve
a real property. This does not involve recovery of possession, halimbawa
recovered panalo ako. Ikaw ang naka-possession. Ayaw mong umalis? Pa demolish
ko iyan kasi it pertains to a real action of recovery of position. Pero ito
(Magic case), declaration of the ordinance”.
He said he could not just order the demolition of the
edifice because the C.A did not unequivocally say he should do it.
“Ayaw ko ma accused ng
ignorance of the law”.
Pinlac debunked Armas arguments that MGC is a builder in bad
faith.
“Assuming arguendo na
puwede i demolish. You cannot demolish, why? Remember that Magic is a builder
in good faith. Ginawa niya iyan based on contract thinking that the contract is
valid”.
He said the right thing to do to flatten the huge mall is to
file an action for recovery of possession or ejection.
