CA remanded ‘Bingo Operation Case’ of Puentevella to the Lower Court
Bacolod City–Lawyer Jesus V. Hinlo confirmed last Monday that the Court of Appeals Special Former Twentieth Division had recently issued its resolution relative to the bingo operation which was ordered closed by Mayor Evelio Leonardia on March 2, 2007.
The Phuture Vision Company owned and operated by the sons of Lone District Representative Monico Puentevella was ordered close by Leonardia on the premise that they had no right to operate bingo operations for lack of an appropriate Mayor’s Permit and did not even give the latter an opportunity to be heard or lack of due process.
The said company exhausted the remedies by filing a petition for mandamus with damages before the Regional Trial Court Branch 49 on the ground that the city did not give due process through their swift judgment. The Local Court dismissed the case filed by the Phuture Vision that prompted them to appeal this matter to the Court of Appeals in Cebu City. Last February 27, 2009, the CA partly granted the decision of RTC Branch 49 and the dismissal of the main action was reversed and ordered to remand the case to the point of origin.
Hinlo said that the city government did not contend with the decision and likewise filed the Motion for
Reconsideration. However, The CA Special Former Twentieth Division lately denied said motion and stand to its previous decision last February 27, 2009. Hinlo welcomed the development of the case along his co-legal counsel Atty. Rolando Villamor who declared that their case was vindicated because the Lower Court will once again determine the issue of due process and also the damages that they had filed from the very beginning.
Hinlo quoted the decision lay down by the Court of Appeals that stated, “the right to due process is not merely statutory, it is a constitutional right. Indeed, our Constitution provides that No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of Law”. He also read that decision that stated, “Granting for the sake of argument that petitioner appelle had no right to operate bingo operation for lack of an appropriate Mayor’s Permit, still it did not give the respondent-appellees the unbridled authority to unceremoniously close petitioner appelant’s bingo establishment”.
