Cebu City Hall: Resto owner afforded due process

CEBU, Philippines - The Cebu City Hall disclosed that records of the case related to the closure of a private commercial building will show that its owner, Adrian Lee, has been accorded due process before its permit was revoked by the Office of the Building Official.

The City Legal Office drafted a motion for reconsideration yesterday a month after Department of Public Works and Highways Secretary Rogelio Singson issued a resolution ordering OBO to reinstate both the building and fencing permits to the two-storey resto that it closed in July.

“…it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable [Office] that this Motion for Reconsideration be granted and that the resolution dated November 9, 2015 be reconsidered and set aside and a new one be issued dismissing the appellant-building owner’s appeal for lack of merit,” read part of the motion for consideration prepared by City Hall lawyer Bernard Garcia.

In a resolution dated November 9, Singson granted the appeal of Lee.

“…the Notice of Revocation issued by OBO of Cebu City is hereby reversed and set aside. The OBO of Cebu City is hereby ordered to reinstate both the building permit and fencing permit previously issued to the appellant,” portion of the resolution read.

Garcia moved for reconsideration of the resolution on the ground that Lee had been afforded due process.

The resolution cited that OBO’s issuance of the notice of revocation resulted from a resolution issued by the Cebu City Zoning Board. Engr. Jose Marie Poblete, the appellee, is the OBO head as well as the CCZB member.

“In relation to the instant case, it would now come into view that the revocation of the subject permits is deficient. The same lacks the proper procedure in issuing the same. It turns out that Atty. Poblete, the Building Official relied on the resolution from the CCZB, an entirely different body, with a different authority and duties discharge,” read the resolution.

Garcia argued that the proceedings conducted by CCZB, which revoked the appellant’s locational clearance, should not be taken “as a separate proceeding but a vital part that necessarily led to the revocation of his building and fencing permits.”   — (FREEMAN)