Oca slams ruling on motion, goes to CA

By NITZ ARANCON, Correspondent

MAYOR Oscar Moreno expressed his distrust over the way the Office of the Ombudsman has been handling documents as he assailed its ruling upholding its earlier decision to dismiss and bar him from holding public office in connection with the controversial 2013 tax settlement between city hall and Ajinomoto Philippines.

On Tuesday afternoon, Moreno brought his case to the Court of Appeals (CA), asking it to reverse the ombudsman’s 2015 decision that found him guilty of grave misconduct for city hall’s act of reassessing the taxes of Ajinomoto.

That year, Ajinomoto went to court, questioning city hall’s P2.9-million tax assessment. On court orders, acting city treasurer Glenn Banez and the firm resolved the dispute through arbitration, and agreed to lower the tax assessment to some P300 thousand.

In his defense, Moreno maintained that he had nothing to do with the settlement, and that it was purely the call of Banez as the local government treasurer.

Banez, too, was ordered dismissed and barred from public office by the ombudsman.

In his 33-page petition, Moreno asked the appellate court to review the case for grave misconduct filed by former Taglimao barangay chairman William Guialani, and to go over the decision approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.

Guialani, and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) which has been tasked to serve the ombudsman’s order, were named as respondents.

Moreno sought a reversal of the ombudsman’s ruling. He also the court to trash the grave misconduct case against him, saying it lacked merit.

He maintained that there was no wrongdoing on his part, and pointed out that the ombudsman decided on the case without giving weight to his answer. He said the ombudsman’s ruling made it clear that it missed out on his counter-affidavit.

“There is error in finding that appellant/petitioner did not comply with the Ombudsman order’s dated March 27, 2015, because he actually filed his counter-affidavit on April 20, 2015, through the Office of the Ombudsman in Cagayan de Oro City,” reads part of Moreno’s petition.

He also pointed out that when the ombudsman ruled to uphold its 2015 decision, it was because of another technicality.

Moreno filed his motion for reconsideration with the ombudsman on Nov. 9, 2015. On Feb. 15, 2016, the ombudsman rejected his appeal–he received a copy of the decision in June 24.

He said the reason why the ombudsman denied his motion for reconsideration was because he only attached a mere “Xerox copy” of his counter-affidavit.

Moreno explained that he opted not to attach the last remaining original copy of his counter-affidavit for fear that the Office of the Ombudsman would lose the document again as it did in 2015.