Case Summary (G.R. No. 221253-54)
Consolidated Petitions Overview
The consolidated petitions focus on two main actions: petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and petitions for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65. They aim to contest the Court of Appeals’ decisions that overturned the Office of the Ombudsman’s ruling, which found the respondents guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed them from service.
Background and Facts of the Case
After his election in 2013, Mayor Moreno appointed BaAez to review tax records and handle assessments. An assessment issued to Ajinomoto resulting from a tax reclassification led to a legal dispute, culminating in a mediated settlement agreeing to a significantly lower tax obligation. Guialani later filed a complaint arguing that the settlement required Sanggunian approval under the Local Government Code.
Proceedings Before the Ombudsman
The Ombudsman found Moreno and BaAez guilty of grave misconduct for failing to seek authorization from the Sanggunian for the settlement agreement. Consequently, they were dismissed from service, along with penalties that included cancellation of eligibility and forfeiture of benefits.
Court of Appeals Rulings
Respondents filed for certiorari in the Court of Appeals to contest the Ombudsman's decision. The appellate court granted a temporary restraining order and subsequently reversed the Ombudsman's decision, determining that no Sanggunian approval was needed for the settlement agreement and dismissing the administrative charges based on merit.
Legal Arguments
Guialani and the Ombudsman argue that the CA erred in ruling that the settlement did not require prior Sanggunian approval, emphasizing that a settlement creates binding obligations that necessitate legislative approval under the Local Government Code. They assert that the local treasurer’s powers do not extend to unilaterally settling tax liabilities without oversight.
Court’s Rulings on Administrative Liability
The Supreme Court ruled that the settlement required Sanggunian approval, as it represents the discretion to impose tax, which is a legislative function. The involvement of the local treasurer in mediation does not exempt the necessity of legislative consent, and failure to secure such authority constitutes misconduct.
Findings Against Respondent BaAez
The Court found BaAez guilty of simple misconduct for failing to obtain approval from the Sanggunian. Although there was no evidence of corruption or intent to violate the law, BaAez's disregard for procedural requirements was sufficient for liability.
Findings Against Respondent Moreno
The evidence was found insufficient to hold Mayor Moreno accountable for BaAez’s actions regarding the tax settlement. Moreno did not have direct involvement in the execution of t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 221253-54)
Case Overview
- The consolidated petitions involve G.R. Nos. 221253-54, 227527-28, and 231065-68, where William Guialani and the Office of the Ombudsman challenge decisions by the Court of Appeals concerning the dismissal of Mayor Oscar S. Moreno and City Treasurer Glenn C. BaAez for alleged grave misconduct related to a tax settlement with Ajinomoto Philippines Corporation.
- The petitions focus on the necessity of Sanggunian approval for tax settlement agreements made by local executives.
Facts of the Case
- Oscar S. Moreno was elected Mayor of Cagayan de Oro City in 2013 and appointed Glenn C. BaAez as OIC of the City Treasurer's Office.
- BaAez assessed a deficiency tax from Ajinomoto totaling P2,924,428.34 for years 2006-2012 due to a classification change of monosodium glutamate.
- Ajinomoto contested the tax assessment and filed a lawsuit, which led to a mediated settlement reducing its tax liability to P300,000.
- The settlement agreement was signed by BaAez without prior approval from the Sangguniang Panglungsod, which Guialani argued was required under the Local Government Code.
- Guialani filed a complaint against BaAez and Moreno for grave misconduct, asserting that the agreement violated local government regulations.
- The Ombudsman found both respondents guilty, imposing a penalty of dismissal from service