Ombudsman clears Aloguinsan engineer

CEBU, Philippines - Citing lack of evidence, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas dismissed the complaint filed against the head of the Office of the Building Official (OBO) in Aloguinsan, Cebu.

Graft investigator Euphemia Bacalso cleared municipal engineer Orven Nengasca for administrative complaint of misconduct or violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

“On the basis of the established facts, we find neither unlawful behavior nor gross negligence or transgression of some established and definite rule of action on the part of respondent in issuing the subject fencing permit,” the decision reads.

Lucia Manguilimutan and others are the complainants of the case. They claimed possesion of the lot 711 since the 1940s. The lot is situated in Bonbon, Aloguinsan.

Complainants said there was no due process when respondent issued a fencing permit to Venus Perez, the attorney-in-fact of the heirs of Juana Lawi-an and Araceli Gantuangco, who claimed ownership of the lot.

 “Said issuance is unjust and illegal as it deprived complainants and their families access to their homes and farms from the public highway and vice-versa. If the fencing permit would be observed and implemented, complainants and hundreds of other individuals would be deprived of their livelihood, denied of their freedom and liberty to move around and work,” they said.

Complainants’ alleged respondent acted in bad faith for giving favor to Perez. Likewise, they alleged the fencing permit was “null and void” after the application did not bear the signature of an architect.

However, the respondent in his counter-affidavit stated that before Perez applied for fencing permit, he received a letter from lawyer Rossil Paranas informing them that Perez has Special Power of Attorney to file the application for fencing permit on behalf of the owners.

Respondent argued Perez have complied all necessary requirements as cited under Section 302 (Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Building Code) the tax declarations, tax clearances, lot plan and architectural plan.

“The absence of the signature of the architect in boxes 7 and 8 in the application are not fatal because what are primordial importance under the rules are the plans and specifications which, in this case, are clearly signed by the required professional architect Marcos Persons Jr,” the counter-affidavit reads.

As for the claim of the complainants that they were in possession of the lot since 1940s, respondent said it was not his duty to determine whether or not they owned the lot.

He said that the complainants did not oppose for the three-month period while the application was still pending before his office or presented injunction to prevent him for issuing the permit.

Respondent claimed as being “caught in the crossfire of the larger issues on ownership/possession which have already been submitted to the regular court for determination.”

Claiming they filed the complaint “out of fear and misunderstanding,” last January 13, 2012 the complainants withdraw the case by filing an affidavit of desistance.

Complainants retracted their earlier statement and said they were not scared of losing their homes and land.

“After counseling and enlightenment, they lost interest in prosecuting their case and besides, they have lost evidence or witnesses in the pursuit of the same,” decision reads.

Bacalso ruled there’s no doubt as to the issuance of the permit as it was supported by documents.

“The records show and its stands un-refuted that Perez is one of the designated representatives and attorneys-in-fact of the heirs of Juana Lawi-an and Araceli Gantuangco the alleged owners of Lot 711,” decision reads.

Bacalso added the affidavit of desistance cannot be disregarded by their office. She added the said affidavit appears to “be justifiable and substantial.”

“As the reason behind the complainants’ desistance goes in to the merit and substance of the case, the dismissal of the complaint is deemed appropriate under the circumstances obtaining,” decision reads. — Mylen P. Manto/JPM (THE FREEMAN)