Former Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA) Chairperson Maria Belen Acosta.
FB Photo
DAVAO CITY, Philippines – Former Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA) chairperson Maria Belen Acosta has stated she will only return the agency-issued service vehicles if she fails to secure a temporary restraining order from the court.
Lawyer Israelito Torreon, Acosta’s legal counsel, told Newsline Philippines, “We wrote a letter to MinDA explaining that we still have the right to appeal to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. We indicated that if we are not granted a temporary restraining order, we will voluntarily return the vehicle assigned to her in the meantime.”
Acosta was removed from office by the Office of the President on May 20 due to “Lack of Trust and Confidence.” Since her removal, she has yet to return the three service vehicles issued to her by the agency, which include a Staria, Innova, and Expander.
Last week, a judge from the Regional Trial Court Branch dismissed Acosta’s motion. However, Torreon stated, “We are taking this to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. We have 15 days to act or, if we file a petition for certiorari, we have 60 days to act.”
Torreon is still discussing the next legal steps with his client. “If she decides to raise it via Rule 45, we can go directly to the Supreme Court. If we go via certiorari, we have 60 days to raise it before the Court of Appeals.”
Acosta had previously filed a quo warranto case against Leo Magno, the new MinDA chairperson, which was dismissed by RTC Branch 12 Judge Mario Duaves. Following this, Acosta petitioned for Duaves to inhibit himself from the case and filed a motion for reconsideration, which was assigned to Judge Nanette Gustilo Lemana.
On July 10, Judge Lemana denied Acosta’s motion for reconsideration in an 18-page decision. In her ruling, she stated, “Regarding the doctrine of presidential immunity from suit, this Court holds that this doctrine is inapplicable in the instant case. The President’s right to choose the MinDA Chairperson and the duration of their term is beyond the scope of a quo warranto case. This can be determined more appropriately in a proper case. Besides, the President is not a party in this case.”
Regarding the contempt case, Torreon stated, “That is a closed story.”
