CEBU, Philippines - The anti-graft office cleared fomer Cebu Provincial Treasurer Roy Salubre and three others of the administrative complaint filed against them over an auction sale issue.
Graft investigation and prosecution officer Luanne Ivy Cabatingan said the complainants Enrique Penaranda and Trinidad Imperial failed to prove their case.
“In this case, complainants’ evidence proves substantially that they made a payment for tax in arrears and cost of sale for the Salud property. However, complainants failed to establish their basic premise that said payment was made in pursuance of a public auction or bidding over the said property,†the decision reads.
Named respondents were Salubre, Local Treasury Operations Officer Arturo Cañares, San Fernando municipal treasurer Fernando Lorna Manugas and Sta. Fe municipal treasurer Palma Batobalonos.
In their complaint, Penaranda and Imperial, representatives of Superior Gas and Equipment Company (SUGECO), said that on April 24, 2007, they went to the Provincial Treasurer’s Office to participate in a scheduled auction sale of delinquent real properties.
One of the real properties was owned by spouses Teodoro and Felicitas Salud situated in Pitalo, San Fernando, Cebu. The complainant said Cañares and Batobalonos, on the same day, conducted an oral bidding.
The complainants said they were advised to pay the tax in arrears in the mount of P1.9 million.
The complainants also said they even paid the taxes in arrears and “cost of sale†in the amount of P394,969.24.
However, no certificate of sale was issued in favor of the SUGECO after the auction sale was terminated.
After several days of waiting, they made verbal and written requests to Salubre.
In his reply, Salubre denied that the property was subjected to auction sale. Thus, he could not issue a Certificate of Sale.
The other respondents said there was no auction sale in relation to the said property after representatives of SUGECO paid the taxes in arrears and cost of sale before the start of the public bidding.
Cabatingan in her decision said based on the evidence presented, the complainants failed to establish that the payment of the tax in arrears and the cost of sale “indeed arose from a public bidding.â€
“With the two conflicting versions of the parties, it appears that the situation in this case may very well have arisen from a mere misunderstanding on the parts of the parties wherein complainant firmly believed that they were bidding for the property in question and respondents were of the impression that complainants were making the payment in question to stay or prevent the auction sale of said property,†the decision reads. (FREEMAN)