By Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa
Variety News Staff

THE Superior Court has granted the Malite heirs’ motion to disqualify Judge Juan T. Lizama from presiding over any further proceedings in the estate of Angel Malite.
Superior Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman in an order on Tuesday, said in order to maintain the integrity of the judiciary in the eyes of its constituents, the case must be reassigned to another judge.
Wiseman said the combined effect of Lizama’s receipt of a letter from Juan Somol, one of the heirs, as evidenced by the court’s stamp on the flipside; his failure to disclose the letter to all parties; and his impatience and antagonism directed toward the Malite heirs’ counsel who attempted to introduce testimony to refute evidence adduced in support of Jesus Somol’s mwei-mwei adoption — all this created the appearance that Lizama was predisposed to rule in favor of Jesus Somol and that the Malite heirs’ participation in the Somol hearing “was nothing more than a frustrated exercise in futility.”
Wiseman said the court must stress that it does not know whether Lizama personally viewed the letter directed to his attention or actually formed an opinion based on the letter.
However, Wiseman added, “the policy behind employing an objective standard for disqualification motions is to preserve the integrity of the court by concomitantly preserving the reputation of the courts as an impartial appraiser of the facts and law.”
Wiseman said “the strong appearance of an ex parte communication between a judge and a party on a material issue pending before the court undermines the court’s reputation in the eyes of the public.”
“Ex parte” communication means that the judge communicated with one of the parties in the absence, or without notifying, the other party
Wiseman said the judge’s “excessively impatient treatment of the court’s officers only bolstered the suspicion that Lizama maintained prejudice against the Malite heirs, their counsel or both.”
Lizama’s conduct, Wiseman added, “surrounding his award of attorney fees in the civil case and then denying the Malite heirs TRO unfortunately led this court to the inescapable conclusion that an objective person would reasonably perceive a bias on the part of Judge Lizama in favor of some parties and to the detriment of the Malite heirs.”
Lizama presided over two civil actions involving the Malite estate, the now defunct Marianas Public Lands Authority and the CNMI government.
The negotiation and settlement of the land compensation between the Malite heirs and the government ran from the end of 2004 to Feb. 2006.
Attorney Steve Nutting negotiated, drafted and finalized a settlement agreement on behalf of the Malite heirs.
The settlement agreement provided in part for the compensation of the Malite estate in the amount of $3,450,000 for certain parcels of land.
Following the court’s approval of the settlement agreement, the counsel for the Malite estate administrator filed a request for approval of attorney’s fees and payment in the land compensation case.
Lizama issued an order on May 12, 2006 granting Antonio Atalig and Reynaldo Yana attorney’s fees amounting to $1,138,500 from the settlement.
But the Malite heirs filed a motion for a TRO to vacate Lizama’s order, claiming that the order awarding attorney fees was improperly ex parte because of lack of notice. They also said that it deprived them of a fair opportunity to be heard and violated the terms of the settlement agreement.
Lizama denied the TRO for lack of standing.
He also found that the Malite heirs who were not named parties in the land compensation action were not entitled to notice or an opportunity to be heard because they failed to intervene in the land compensation action and were not parties in the action.
On June 29, 2006, Lizama issued an errata order for his original order confirming the mwei mwei adoption of Jesus Somol and recognizing the estate of Jesus Somol as an heir to the estate of Remedio Malite.
Lizama’s order also acknowledged that the administrator of the Angel Malite estate, Jesus Tudela, accepted Juan Somol’s claims of heirship to the estate and found that lack of mention of Jesus Somol in official documents was not probative and the Malite’s clans of alleged lack of knowledge of any mwei mwei adoption of Jesus Somol was uncompelling.
Following the Somol hearing and Lizama’s denial of the TRO seeking to enjoin the disbursement of attorney’s fees, the Malite heirs requested that Lizama recuse himself from the probate action.