CEBU CITY — A Regional Trial Court (RTC) has found Mayor Teresa Alegado of Consolacion town, Cebu, guilty of indirect contempt for defying a court order to remove barricades blocking access to a supermarket built on a lot leased by the municipal government.
Judge Merlo Bagano of RTC Branch 14 in Cebu City issued the decision on December 19, 2024, though copies of the ruling only became available to reporters on January 8, 2025.
Court Ruling and Penalty:
Judge Bagano ruled that Mayor Alegado should be indefinitely detained until she complies with the court’s order to remove the barricades surrounding Fooda Saversmart.
“Given the circumstances of the case and the prayers of the petitioners, this court finds that she should be indefinitely incarcerated for disobeying the assailed writ until such time she is able to comply with the same,” the judge stated.
Alternatively, if Alegado complies with the directive, she will instead face a fine of ₱30,000.
Mayor to Challenge the Ruling:
Lawyer Paulo Sucalit, the legal officer of Consolacion town, announced that Mayor Alegado plans to file a motion for reconsideration to contest the ruling.
Sucalit emphasized that the decision is not yet final, stating, “We will exhaust all legal remedies available to challenge the court’s decision.”
Background of the Case:
The case stems from a lease dispute between the municipal government and Fooda Saversmart, which erupted in 2023.
Fooda Saversmart, along with its president, Patrick Ngochua, alleged that local authorities unjustly placed barricades around their leased property, identified as Lot Numbers 604 and 11222 in Barangay Poblacion, Consolacion.
The supermarket owners claimed that the barricades disrupted their operations and sought legal intervention to remove them.
The Cebu court granted Fooda Saversmart’s petition for a writ of preliminary injunction, ordering the immediate removal of the barricades. Despite this directive, Mayor Alegado did not comply, leading to the court’s decision to hold her in contempt.
Legal Implications:
Under the Rules of Court, indirect contempt occurs when a person disobeys or resists a lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command issued by the court.
If found guilty of indirect contempt, the respondent may face penalties including a fine of up to ₱30,000, imprisonment for up to six months, or both.
Next Steps:
While the mayor’s legal team prepares to contest the decision, the court’s ruling underscores the consequences of defying judicial orders. Fooda Saversmart continues to assert its rights to unimpeded access to the leased property as the legal battle unfolds.