By Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa
Variety News Staff

THE administrator of the estate of Angel Malite and his two counsels has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to vacate Superior Court Judge David Wiseman’s order disqualifying Judge Juan T. Lizama from presiding in the case.
The administrator, Jesus C. Tudela and his counsels Antonio M. Atalig and Reynaldo O. Yana filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court.
The petitioners are seeking a judgment vacating Wiseman’s order dated March 20, 2007 which granted a motion of certain Malite heirs to disqualify Lizama from presiding over the case.
The petitioners stated in their petition for writ of mandamus that the basis for seeking a writ is that Wiseman was under a duty to disclose a material fact to the parties and his failure to disclose is a violation of canon rules of judicial conduct and local statute.
In their petition, Tudela, Atalig and Yana stated that Wiseman’s order was erroneous and should be vacated for lack of authority or jurisdiction.
They said Wiseman intentionally, knowingly and purposely failed to disclose a material fact about a letter and its contents to the parties in a motion to disqualify him because his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
The petitioners said they would be prejudiced if a writ is not issued.
Petitioners ask that that Wiseman’s order be vacated and a new order entered remanding the case back to Lizama for further proceedings consistent with this court’s decision.
The petitioners said Wiseman knew about the opinion he shared with Lizama as early as July 17, 2006.
Wiseman knew about the July 17, 2006 letter from Lizama to the presiding judge alleging that Wiseman had expressed an opinion that the administrator’s counsel did not deserve to receive the contingent fee of $1.138 million.
The petitioners said that opinion was expressed in a letter dated July 17, 2006 from Lizama to Presiding Judge Robert Naraja. The opinion was expressly made by Wiseman before the motion hearing to disqualify Lizama on Aug. 4, 2006.
Atalig and Yana’s petition stated that Wiseman knew that his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
The lawyers said Wiseman made no disclosure of the opinion or letter until nine months later on or about April 4, 2007.
“He therefore did not give the parties the opportunity to make a waiver or to insist on his recusal,” Tudela, Atalig and Yana’s petition for writ stated.
The petitioners said Wiseman was put on notice to disclose the contents of that letter because a motion was made to disqualify him.
“He did not recuse himself and therefore his order granting the motion to disqualify Judge Lizama is null and void and without authority which is another name for lack of jurisdiction,.” the petition stated.
The factual background indicates that on June 7, 2006, Malite heirs, respondents Rosa Maliti, Lourdes M. Rangamar and Romber M. Sinounou, by and through their counsel Stephen Nutting, filed a motion to disqualify Lizama from presiding over the case after the judge awarded Atalig and Yana attorney’s fees amounting to $1.138 million.
On July 10, 2006, Presiding Judge Robert Naraja assigned the motion to disqualify Lizama to Wiseman.
On July 18, 2006, Wiseman set a hearing on the motion to disqualify Lizama for Aug. 4, 2006.
On Aug. 4, 2006, the court heard respondents’ motion to disqualify Lizama.
At the same time, Tudela through his counsels Atalig and Yana, filed a motion to disqualify Wiseman from hearing the motion on the ground that he had a bias against administrator’s counsel especially with respect to whether they were entitled to the $1.138 million in attorney fees that they had received.
The petitioners said in spite of the motion to disqualify him, Wiseman proceeded to hear respondents’ motion to disqualify Lizama.
The Malite heirs have also requested a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court seeking the return of attorney fees paid to Atalig and Yana.
The Supreme Court denied the Malite heirs’ petition and reversed the matter and remanded it to the probate court for a hearing on the propriety of the attorney fees’s which should be awarded in the civil proceeding.