CA rebukes ombud, Guialani, partisans

By CONG B. CORRALES
Associate Editor

THE 22nd Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) virtually gave the Office of the Ombudsman a mouthful over the way it handled the case against Mayor Oscar Moreno and city treasurer Glenn Bañez in connection with the controversial 2013 tax settlement between city hall and Ajinomoto Philippines Corp..

The appellate court also stated that the complainant, former barangay chairman William Guialani, was “quick to quack that there is diversion of public funds” and that city hall was deprived of tax revenues without presenting proof.

The CA also pointed out how the case was used in partisan politics, and how associate justices were vilified.

In its decision that dismissed the graft case against Moreno and Bañez, the CA associate justices said the ombudsman’s ruling was like viewing the case through a “keyhole.”

In a 26-page consolidated ruling, dated Oct. 13, the appellate court reversed the decision of the ombudsman to dismiss Moreno and Bañez and perpetually disqualify them from holding public office for “lack of merit” and because of its “mootness.”

Associate Justices Edgardo Camello, Oscar Badelles and Perpetua Atal-Paño signed the decision that berated the ombudsman for dismissing the court-sanctioned settlement between city hall and Ajinomoto.

“For in the quasi-judicial proceedings now under judicial review, the legality, regularity, and validity of that judicial compromise had somehow, and thus far, been successfully assailed, not by means of a suit in a court of law directly impugning it, but by means of a collateral attack in the form of an administrative disciplinary case before a mere quasi-judicial agency,” reads part of the decision.

The CA said ombudsman committed an “irreversible error” when it decided on what a court of law ruled as a lawful settlement as unlawful and irregular.

The tax settlement was a result of an arbitration ordered by a regional court that heard the case filed by Ajinomoto, questioning city hall’s tax assessment. The 2013 arbitration resulted in an agreement that lowered the tax assessment from P2.9 million to some P300 thousand.

The CA noted that the amount in the tax assessment was only a speculative figure.

“It amounted to an undue non-judicial modification of an immutable judgment of a court of law,” the decision reads in part.

The CA ruled that the tax settlement was merely a result of a typical and routine local tax assessment work.

“The Office of the Ombudsman was quick to rule that the court-assisted Settlement Agreement entered into and signed by the local treasurer without prior authority from the Sanggunian was a grave misconduct,” the CA ruling reads in part.

Citing the Quisumbing v. Garcia case, the CA said Section 22 of the Local Government Code could only be applicable if Bañez, in representing the city, entered into a contract with new obligations.

The CA also noted how the case was used in partisan politics. “The facts, as records reflect, are simple… But the real-life matrix that bred those facts had been political, polarized, and passionately partisan.”

It lamented that because of the ombudsman’s decision, “serious and vile innuendoes, and accusations whooped, whizzed, and walloped wildly against members of this court” after it issued a temporary restraining order against the latter’s decision.

The associate justices stated that they were well aware of the timing of the filing of the complaint which was leading to the national and local elections.

“All because of what was ultimately at stake in the contest going on both in the election-animated activities outside and the cold and clinical judicial process inside this Court: the mayorship of the city,” the CA decision reads in part.

In reviewing the ombudsman’s decision, the CA observed that the latter “overly simplified the matter.”

The associate justices pointed out that the tax settlement agreement was only the tip of the iceberg, and the ombudsman viewed the case through a “keyhole.”

“The Ombudsman erred in applying without qualification Section 22 of the Local Government Code, just at it erred in finding the petitioners (Moreno and Bañez) guilty of grave misconduct,” they stated.

The CA also stated that the ombudsman failed to justify its finding that there was grave misconduct on the part of Moreno and Bañez.

“One cannot be found guilty of misconduct in the absence of substantial evidence,” the CA decision reads.

The CA said they found no evidence on record that showed that Moreno and Bañez benefited, directly or indirectly from the tax settlement.

The associate justices also chided the complainant, Guialani, over his “charlatan claim that the city coffers did not become P2.6 million richer.”

They said the ombudsman agreed with Guialani’s accusation “quite uncharacteristically.” The ombudsman, they stated, could not identify what evidence was substantial to “sufficiently support its ‘sentence,’ consisting of the ‘capital’ penalty of dismissal from service.”

The associate justices also questioned the allegation that Moreno had played a direct role in the settlement agreement.

“Despite lack of any direct or circumstantial evidence to this effect, Guialani marvelously managed to persuade the Office of the Ombudsman with his unsupported allegations,” reads another portion of the CA ruling.

The court ruled that the Moreno’s direct supervisory powers over Bañez is not enough reason to implicate Moreno in the transaction.

“All in all, the reasoning of Guialani, as embraced by the Ombudsman, is simply not supported by substantial evidence required by law in administrative proceedings, especially those that end up in the removal from office of duly elected local officials whose mandate to serve emanates directly from the sovereign electorate,” the CA ruled.