High court orders Mitchell, client to return money

The Supreme Court has ruled that the decision of the Superior Court ordering the payment of $1.5 million to a local golfer in a civil case against Saipan LauLau Development Inc. and Shimizu Corp. was not a final judgment thus, it cannot be executed.

In a decision issued by Associate Justice Alexandro C. Castro, Justice Pro Tem Pedro M. Atalig and Special Judge Alberto C. Lamorena III, the high court remanded the controversial case to the Superior Court so that it can take all the necessary measure to ensure the return of the funds prematurely withdrawn from the bank account of Saipan LauLau.

In granting the defendants’ motion for writ of mandamus, the high tribunal said all parties should be able to resolve the litigation based on the rules of civil procedure.

The judgment stemmed from an earlier writ of execution issued by the Superior Court ordering golfer Juan M. San Nicolas to recover from Saipan LauLau Development Inc., owner of Saipan LauLau Golf Course, and Shimizu Corp. the $1.5 million in damages awarded by a jury.

Mr. San Nicolas and his lawyer Theodore Mitchell went to the bank and withdrew the $800,056.38 which was under the account of Saipan LauLau and Shimizu Corp.

Immediately, Saipan LauLau, Shimizu Corp. and Tokio Marine filed a temporary restraining order with the Supreme Court seeking the return of the money withdrawn claiming the judgment of the lower court was not final and that they will still appeal the decision.

In addition, the defendants in the civil case pointed out that the judgment would not be final until it included Tokio Marine’s liability since it is the insurer of Saipan LauLau.

The high tribunal then ordered Mr. San Nicolas to turn over the money withdrawn to the court pending resolution of the case. But Mr. San Nicolas and his suspended lawyer have continuously defied the court’s order.

In his motion, Mr. San Nicolas argued that the Superior Court judgment was final for the purposes of execution but not for appeal. However, he cited no authority to support such argument.

But the high court emphasized that until a judgment is clearly and unambiguously final, the parties cannot seek to execute it.

At the same time, the high court threw out the motion filed by Mr. Mitchell seeking the disqualification of the panel of justices hearing the case claiming that they are biased and prejudiced.

The tribunal also junked the motion to disqualify the Mair, Mair, Spade & Thompson Law firm and the affidavit of Guam-based lawyer David Lujan.

According to the court, Mr. Mitchell failed to provide any evidence to prove his allegations which would merit the disqualification of the panel members. “Once again, this court will not allow Mitchell to boldly accuse the court and third parties of wrongdoing for the mere purpose of delaying these proceedings,” the judgment said. (Lindablue F. Romero)