Mayor files another MR with ombudsman

By NITZ ARANCON
Correspondent

MAYOR Oscar Moreno and city treasurer Glenn Bañez filed a motion for reconsideration even as they asked the Office of the Ombudsman to reverse its decision on the criminal complaint filed against them in connection with the 2014 tax settlement between city hall and Ajinomoto Philippines.

The ombudsman recently decided to bring Moreno and Bañez before the Sandiganbayan for graft because of an out-of-court settlement that lowered the tax assessment for Ajinomoto from P2.9 million to some P300 thousand without the city council’s approval.

On Friday afternoon, Moreno and Bañez appealed their case before the ombudsman that upheld its ruling on the administrative aspect of the same case earlier this year.

The motion for reconsideration was filed two days ahead of the July 30 deadline for them to make an appeal.

In their 22-page motion, Moreno and Bañez asked the ombudsman again to reconsider its decision to on the criminal case that was elevated to the anti-graft court and dismiss it “for lack of basis to determine the existence of probable cause.”

Moreno received an official copy of the ombudsman’s Feb. 23 resolution in July 25. In it, the ombudsman stated that there was basis for the criminal complaint filed against them by former Taglimao barangay chairman William Guialani.

Specifically, the ombudsman said the officials violated Section 3(a) and 3(g) of Republic Act 3019.

Moreno’s lawyer Dale Bryan Mordeno said the ombudsman’s office committed “grave errors of facts” in its decision against the mayor and the city treasurer.

Reads a portion of the motion: “With due respect, respondent Moreno submits that the Honorable Graft Investigator and Prosecution Officer committed grave errors of facts, or laws in rendering the assailed Resolution which, if not rectified, are grossly prejudicial to  his interest.”

Mordeno argued that the ruling was “irregular” and “erroneous” “because it failed to consider the counter affidavit of respondent Moreno which he submitted on April 20, 2015…”

He also said it also violated Moreno’s constitutional right “to be heard and informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him because he was originally charged with violation of Section 3(a) and (g) of the Code.”

According to Mordeno, the settlement between Bañez and Ajinomoto did not require the authority of the city council as mandated in Section 22(c) of the Local Government Code.

“The said section is not exclusionary and that Section 455 (b) 3(iiii) and (viii) of the same code provides the exception to the rules,” Mordero explained.

Mordeno said neither was there a collusion between Moreno and Bañez when the agreement was made.

“Respondent Moreno did not conspire with respondent Bañez when the latter entered into a settlement agreement  with the taxpayer (Ajinomoto),” he said.

It can be recalled that Bañez  reclassified Ajinomoto’s product–monosodium glutamate or MSG–from essential commodity to non-essential commodity, a move that significantly increased city hall’s tax assessment.

Ajinomoto then filed a case against city hall as it questioned the increased tax assessment covering a five-year period, prompting a regional court to direct the parties to undergo arbitration. They then agreed to lower the tax assessment on condition that Ajinomoto would agree to be taxed using the formula for non-essential products the following year.

Guialani, the complainant, said the agreement was wrong without the expressed authority from the city council. He said the agreement was also disadvantageous to city hall because Ajinomoto should have paid P2.9 million and not P300 thousand.