CA trashes Guialani case vs. Oca, Glenn

By NITZ ARANCON
Correspondent

THE Court of Appeals (CA) has dismissed the graft case filed against Mayor Oscar Moreno and city treasurer Glenn Bañez in connection with city hall’s controversial 2013 tax settlement with Ajinomoto Philippines Corp..

The CA ruling also overturned the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman that found the two officials guilty of grave misconduct.

The case had prompted Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales to order Moreno and Bañez dismissed and disqualified from holding public office for life. Recently, she approved the recommendation to indict Moreno and Bañez before the Sandiganbayan.

The case nearly cost Moreno control over city hall late last year after his vice mayor at that time, Caesar Ian Acenas, attempted to take over as mayor based on the ombudsman’s decision. Acenas’s attempt resulted in a week-long standoff at city hall. The Ajinomoto controversy continued to hound Moreno during his reelection campaign, and even until this month.

The appellate court cleared Moreno and Bañez from the case filed by former Taglimao barangay chairman William Guialani in a decision dated Oct. 13.

Associate Justices Edgardo Camello, Oscar Badelles and Perpetua Atal-Paño signed the 26-page CA decision.

The CA associate justices said the grave misconduct case against Moreno and Bañez had to be dismissed for “lack of merit.”

In the same ruling, the appellate court reversed the Oct. 14, 2015 and Feb. 15, 2016 decision of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove Moreno and Bañez from public office.

The CA’s decision came as a result of the petition for certiorari filed by Moreno and Bañez. They assailed the ombudsman’s decision that found them guilty of grave misconduct.

In his case, Moreno asserted, that the ombudsman deprived him of due process of law by deciding on the case without weighing his counter affidavit.

The officials were accused by Guialani of agreeing to lower the tax assessment on Ajinomoto  from P2.92 million to P300 thousand in 2013.

Part of the CA ruling reads:  “… 1) There is no substantial evidence  that Mayor Moreno had participated in the execution of the Settlement Agreement. 2) There is no substantial evidence of a misconduct, much less a grave one meriting a brusque dismissal of the city mayor and the treasurer from service. 3) The law supposedly violated, that is Section 22 of the Local Government Code, does not apply. The disputed contract is not one of those that create new obligation binding the city government that needs approval by the Sanggunian. And 4) since no law has been violated, no grave misconduct was ever committed.”