Churchill Aguilar COLUMNISTS such as I are not foolproof.  Even with prudence sometimes we get misinformation which can lead to our unsound take on certain matters and cause unnecessary injury to some parties. Such was the case with my last article entitled “Before Arlene cries again.”  What I can only assure was that I wrote it in good faith. Still, apologies are in order. First, I would like to ask for an apology to Mayor Oscar Moreno and city treasurer Banez who may have been adversely affected by my censure on my last article. Second, I would like to ask for an apology to my readers whose views may have been slanted due to my take based on the wrong information I gathered.  Allow me therefore to correct such mistake. If I were to recall, I made a strong criticism against Mayor Oca and Treasurer Banez for giving Ajinomoto an over P2-million discount on their tax due while demanding full tax on small-scale businesses. To my thought, there was undue favor given to big corporations which made me conclude that the administration was anti-poor. Later I found out that such was not the whole story. What then is the correct story? Atty. Emeterio S. Moreno Jr. (who reacted to my Facebook post) says, “In 2013, Banez reclassified vetsin from essential to non-essential commodity. The rate of tax is higher. As a result, Banez assessed Ajinomoto of deficiency and penalties in the amount of P2.9m as Banez made the reclassification retroactive plus penalties. As a lawyer, I am convinced that Banez erred in his assessment. Ajinomoto expectedly contested the assessment in court. If the city will fight it out in the court to collect P2.9m, it will surely, as clear as crystal, lose the case and get nothing. Banez perhaps thought that the compromise of P300k is better than nothing. Problem, Banez entered (into a) compromise agreement under supervision of the court without the knowledge of Mayor Moreno. Please note that the ombudsman ruling did not tackle the propriety of the agreement. What it held was Moreno violated Sec 22(c) of Local Government Code as he entered compromise agreement with Ajinomoto without prior authority from the city council. But again, ombudsman missed the point that Moreno had no knowledge and was not a signatory in the compromise agreement. Lastly, treasurer is appointed by Department of Finance and under the control and supervision of (the) DOF. Hence, (the) Ombudsman erred in invoking command responsibility. The investigator may have closed his eyes on this for reasons only God knows.” He further adds that “Banez made it retroactive from 2006-2012. Ajinomoto agreed to pay tax of vetsin under the category of non-essential commodity but it has to be applied prospectively.” I personally don’t know Atty. Emeterio, I am not even sure if he lives in Cagayan, but he put things in better perspective. To simplify it, Banez was only trying to get what CDO should have gotten in the previous years from big companies such as Ajinomoto. The ground for his dismissal was only on technicalities. But if we look at the issue, he should not even be dismissed, nay he should be awarded for his efforts. At least, he has the balls to claim what is rightly ours and he fought for it. And it is not even an issue of applying the law retroactively because the law already exists long before Ajinomoto underpaid the city of its dues, and that the fault was only about wrong categorization from essential to non-essential, something only Banez had the balls to correct and fight. I still don’t agree with some of Oca’s decisions but in this case, I say I was wrong, and I am sorry. My apologies to Oca, and kudos to Banez! His dismissal would be a great loss for the city.