CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY—The Court of Appeals reversed the Ombudsman’s order to dismiss and perpetually disqualify from public office Cagayan de Oro City Mayor Oscar S. Moreno and acting city treasurer Glenn Banez for grave misconduct for entering into a court-supervised tax settlement agreement with Ajinomoto.
The Appellate court, in its Oct. 13, 2016 ruling, noted that tax settlement agreement from the case filed by Ajinomoto Philippines Corp. before the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro to review the P2.9-million tax assessment from 2006 to 2012 “had been declared by the court to be not contrary to law, public policy and public morals.”
The Court of Appeals said there could have been no case for the Ombudsman to start with, adding while the “Ombudsman’s [view] that the settlement agreement was unlawful and irregular [and therefore] was a reversible error” its action may have “amounted to undue non-judicial modification of an immutable judgment of a court of law.”
The CA, in its 26-page decision, said there was no substantial evidence that Moreno, who was re-elected in the May 2016 elections, had participated in the execution of the settlement nor evidence of a misconduc or a grave one “meriting a brusque dismissal of the city mayor and the treasurer from the service.”
It added that since no law was violated, “no grave misconduct was ever committed.”
The ruling also scored the complainant, former Pagliman barangay captain William Guialani, and the Ombudsman for being “quick to quack that there is ‘diversion of public funds, and deprivation of tax revenue of about P2.6 million when Dr. Banez compromised the tax assessment to P300,000.00 only” but did not present any proof “other than his charlatan’s claim that the city coffer did not become 2.6 million richer.’”
The Appellate court noted the Ombudsman ”quite uncharacteristically seconded that the Settlement Agreement indeed caused ‘prejudice and damage’ to the city government… nor did the Ombudsman identify what evidence was so substantial as to sufficiently support its ‘sentence,’ consisting of the ‘capital’ penalty of dismissal from service.”
The CA also affirmed Moreno’s argument that his right to due process was violated by the Ombudsman when the latter did not consider the submission of his counteraffidavit.
“The fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character require more than the Ombudsman’s overly simplified statement, ‘such defenses were considered.’”