By LITO RULONA Correspondent THE Office of the Ombudsman has approved the filing of a case against Mayor Oscar Moreno and city treasurer Glenn Bañez before the Sandiganbayan for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in connection with city hall’s controversial tax settlement with Ajinomoto Philippines. The case against Moreno and Bañez was approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on June 28, 2016. Specifically, Moreno and Bañez were charged with violation of two provisions in the anti-graft law, specifically Section 3(e) and 3(g) of RA 3019. Section 3(e) is about “causing any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.” The other is Section 3(g) for “entering, on behalf of the government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.” Morales however dismissed the charge that Moreno and Bañez violated Section 3(a) of RA 3019. The clause provides: “Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.” In a 13-page decision, the ombudsman ordered the dismissal of all charges against Ajinomoto Philippines Corp. lawyer Jocelyn Tsang. The new ruling was based on the complaint filed by former Taglimao barangay chairman William Guialani in March 13, 2015 who accused the officials of agreeing to lower Ajinomoto’s local tax from P2.9 million to P300 thousand without the consent of the city council. Guialani’s case nearly cost Moreno his seat late last year after the ombudsman issued an order dismissing and barring him from holding public office for grave misconduct. The Court of Appeals (CA) stopped the order from being implemented. Days before Moreno started serving his second office term as mayor, the then vice mayor Caesar Ian Acenas attempted a takeover, arguing that the ombudsman has upheld its 2015 decision. The mayor has filed a motion for reconsideration before the appellate court. The case stemmed from an Aug. 14, 2014 settlement with waiver, release and quit claim between city hall and Ajinomoto involving the firm’s local business tax deficiency from 2006 to 2012. It amounted to P2.924 million. In the agreement, city hall agreed to be paid P300 thousand by Ajinomoto in exchange for the withdrawal of the civil case which the firm filed before a regional court. Ajinomoto questioned the amount even as it sought relief from the tax assessment. The agreement was signed by Banez on behalf of Moreno, and Tsang on behalf for Ajinomoto. Guialani said Moreno and Bañez conspired to violated RA 7160 when they entered into the agreement without the go-ahead of the city council. He also alleged that the agreement was grossly disadvantageous to city hall which could have collected more from Ajinomoto had the parties not agreed on a settlement. The ombudsman said Guialani failed to show evidence showing that Moreno persuaded, induced or influenced Banez, vice versa, to enter into the agreement. It said there was no conspiracy. But the ombudsman said there was probable cause to charge the officials with violation of section 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019. The decision stated that the elements of offense were present in this case. Three elements were cited:
  • the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;
  • he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and
  • his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in discharge of his function.
The ombudsman said Moreno and Bañez gave Ajinomoto “unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference” when they entered into the agreement without the required authorization from the city council. “It is evident that the agreement granting tax relief to Ajinomoto was grossly disadvantageous to the city government considering that in effect the city government’s right to collect its much needed tax revenue was abandoned,” reads part of the resolution. In a text message to this paper, city hall spokesperson Maricel Rivera said, Öur lawyers are handling this. They are still preparing their arguments on this case. We will release them at a proper time.”