Complaint-Affidavit: Office of The Ombudsman (Visayas)

 

Republic of the Philippines OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS)

Department of Agriculture RO-7 Compound, M. Velez St., Guadalupe, Cebu City 6000

CCC

  Complainant,

-versusDDD

Chief Evaluator, Mandaue City   Planning & Development Oice (CPDO), -and ARCHT.. XXXX  ARCHT

For: Grave Grave Miscon Misconduc duct, t, Gross Negligence,  Violation of R.A. 3019 Section 3, Paragraph (e) & Violation of R.A. 6713 Sect Se ctio ion n 4, para paragr grap aphs hs (a) and (b) -----------------------------------

OIC-City Planning &  Development Oice (CPDO), (CPDO),   Respondent/s. x--------------------/

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT I, CCC, of legal age, Filipino and a resident of  Gree Gr een nhi hillls Su Subd bdiv ivis isio ion, n, Ca Casu sun ntin tinga gan n, Manda ndaue Cit City, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state THAT – 1.

I am a pri private ci cittizen, a tax tax pay payer, and and a re res sident of  Mandaue City. I am approaching this Honorable Oice prayi pra ying ng th that at it will will co cond nduc uctt an inve invest stig igat atio ion n on the the highly irregular and patently illegal actions committed by the Respondents abovenamed who are both public oicers.

2.

To al allo low w this this H Hon onor orab able le Oi Oice ce to to prope properl rly y inve invest stig igat ate e the instant case, I would like to provide a summary to the underlying events which lead to the ling of this complaint.

 

3.

As a b ba ackground, I a am m a co concerned homeowner the homeowners’ association of Greenhills Subdivision in Casunt Cas unting ingan an,, Man Mandau daue e Cit City y. At presen present, t, th there ere is an existing feud between some concerned homeowners of  Greenhills Subdivision and the oicers and members of  the th e bo boar ard d of GH GHAI AI by reas reason on of the the ille illega gall acti action ons s undertaken by the latter on many occasions.

4.

In ffa act, by by rea reason son of th the sa said id dis dispu putte, a ca case wa was led led before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) by the group of concerned homeowners in the th e said said su subd bdiv ivis isio ion n in inc clu ludi din ng me. me. The The said said case case involv inv olves es the ill illega egall hom homeow eowner ners’ s’ dues dues impose imposed, d, the illegal use of the open spaces and the illegal constru ruc ction of a deep well by the homeowners association initiated by the oicers and members of the board over a road lot owned by the City of Mandaue. In the said case, the HLURB opined that the acts of the members of the board and oicers of GHAI is illegal.

5.

The said road lot which became part of the HLURB case as mentioned is covered by a Declaration of Real Property showing that the owner is the City of  Mandaue. As proof, a copy of the Declaration of Real Proper Pro perty ty wit with h Tax Dec Declar larat ation ion No. 2017-0 2017-00909-005 00507 07 under und er Propert Property y Ind Index ex No No.. 151-04 151-04-00 -009-0 9-05-0 5-01010-000 000 is hereto her eto atta attache ched d and marked marked as  Annex “A”  and made an integral part hereon.

6.

This is the same property now which the public respondents have issued a Location Clearance in favor of ap appl plic ican ant, t, Es Estr trel elli lita ta Raya Raya,, in re repr pres esen enta tati tion on of  Greenhills Homeowners Association, Inc. allowing the lattter to in la inst sta all a wat water pum pump over over the deep deep well ell illegally constructed over the property of the City of  Mandaue.

7.

Public respondents, committed grave misconduct, gross gro ss ne negl glig igen ence ce,, vi viol olat atio ion n of the the prov provis isio ion n of R.A. R.A. 3019, Section 3, paragraph (e) and R.A. 6713 Section 4, para rag graph phs s (a) and (b), when they appro rove ved d, granted, and issued a locational clearance in favor of  applicant Estrellita Raya despite the latter’s failure to present any supporting documents to show what right they hold to undertake the project constructed on a gov gover la copy co th su Lo Cleaernm ranmen ncent e t dland atnd. ed. A Dec ece epy mbeof r the 13e, subj 2bjec 01ect 7,t Loca is cati htion eonal re rettal o

 

attac att ache hed d and mark marke ed as  Annex “B”  and and made made an integral part hereon. 8.

Considering that the project applicant is a private individual asking for a permit to build something over a land owned by the government, the same is akin to a priv pr iva ate tely ly init initia iatted pr proj ojec ectt whic ich h is gove govern rned ed by Republic Act No. 6957 and must therefore comply with the said law for it to even be considered valid, much more mo re be gi give ven n a loca locati tion onal al clea cleara ranc nce e with withou outt rst rst complying with the requisites required by law. law.

9.

Pu Publ blic ic re resp spo ond nden ents ts can cannot fe feig ign n igno ignora ranc nce e that hat they hey are ar e un unaw awar are e of th the e ow owne ners rshi hip p of the the subj subjec ectt land land cons co nsid ideri ering ng th that at th they ey we were re able able to pe peru ruse se the the Tax Declaration covering the land which clearly shows that it is owned by the City of Mandaue. Moreover, the tax declaration number and property index number of the said sa id Tax De Decl clar arat atio ion n is re ree ect cted ed in th the e Loca Locati tion onal al Clearance they have issued.

10. In fa fact, ct, tthe he Ci City ty,, hav have e iss issued ued a C Ceas ease e and D Desi esist st Order Order dated March 24, 2017 wherein the local government ordered the Oicers and Board of Directors of GHAI to cease and desist from conducting the deep well drilling activity and installation of steel barricades. As proof, a copy co py of th the e sa said id Ce Ceas ase e an and d Desi Desist st Or Orde derr is he here reto to atttac at ache hed d and mark marked ed as  Annex “C”  and made made an integral part hereon. 11. Mor Moreov eover er,, tthe he Cit City y L Lega egall Oi Oice ce mad made e a Legal Legal Opinio Opinion n letter regarding the issue over the subject land. It was opined by the said oice that the deep well constructed over the subject land is without the necessary drilling permit from the Oice of the Building Oicial (OBO) of  Mand Ma ndau aue e Ci City ty an and d the the same same is in vi viol olat atio ion n of City City Ordina Ord inance nce No: 1212-201 2010-5 0-573 73 otherw otherwise ise kno known wn as the Local Building Building Or Ordinance dinance of which states: “Section “Sect ion 4. Dec Declar larat ation ion of Illega Illegall Buildi Building ng,, Stru St ruct ctur ure e or Co Cont ntra rapt ptio ion n - Any Any buildi building ng,, stru st ruct ctur ure e or cont contra rapt ptio ion n erec erecte ted d on an any y public place within the City of Mandaue such as, but not limited to street streets, s, thoroughfa thoroughfares, res, sidewalks,(…) are hereby declared as

 

nuisance or illegal structure. Such building, structure or contraption shall be demolished by the owner there ereof or any of his/her auth au thor orize ized d rep repre rese sent ntat ativ ives es with within in ten ten (1 (1)) days from the date of receipt of such notice to so demolish. Failure or refusal on the part of the owner or his/her authorized repr re pres esen enta tati tive ve to de demo moli lish sh he said said ille illega gall stru st ruct ctur ure e wi with thin in the the peri period od here herein inab abov ove e speci spe cied, ed, shall shall aut automa omatic ticall ally y author authorize ize the Governm rnment of the City of Manda dau ue to demolish the same at the owner’s expense subject to redemption as hereinafter provided.  A copy of the said Legal Opinion dated April 3, 2017 is hereto attached and marked as Annex “D” and made an integral part hereon.

12. Pub Public lic rrespo esponde ndents nts bec became ame guilty guilty o off grave grave misco miscondu nduct ct since they issued a clearance despite knowing full well that the project is conducted over a government land, and, despite the failure of the applicant to prove their right to conduct said project over the subject land or comp co mply ly with ith the the re requ quis isit ites es fo forr the the issu issuan ance ce of the the same. The aforementioned acts of the public respo res pond nden ents ts sh show ow th the e pres presen ence ce of the the el elem emen ents ts of  corr co rrup upti tion on,, a clea clearr inte intent nt to vi viol olat ate e the the la law w, and and a agrant disregard of established rules. 13.. Pu 13 Publ blic ic res respo pond nden ents ts are also also gui guilt lty y of gross gross negli neglige genc nce e considering that given their rank and duty, they should have ha ve be been en more more ci circ rcu umspe mspec ct and dili dilig gent ent in the exercise of their duties considering that it is expected from them as the Chief Evaluator and Oicer in-charge for the Mandaue City Planning & Development Oice. Public respondents are precisely assigned to perform task ta sks s im impo pose sed d upon upon th them em wh whic ich h woul would d requ require ire for for them to inquire into the nature of the activities/projects within the City of Mandaue including the permissibility of the same considering the location as well as the right of the applicants to conduct the same.

 

14.. Pu 14 Publ blic ic res espo pond nden ents ts are li like kew wise ise guil guiltty of vi vio olat lating ing Republic Act No. 3019 otherwise known as Anti-Graft and an d Co Corr rrup uptt Pr Prac acti tice ces s Ac Act, t, part partic icul ular arly ly Sect Sectio ion n 3, para pa ragr gra aph (e (e)) since ince thei eirr acts obvi obvio ously usly show showed ed prefer pre feren ence ce in th the e di disc scha harg rge e of thei theirr admi admini nist stra rati tive ve capacity when they issued a locational clearance for a privately initiated project over a public land despite knowing full well that the applicant does not have the authority nor have complied with existing laws,. The issuance of the locational clearance denitely caused injury to the Local Government of the City of Mandaue as the latter was practically deprived of the right to con co ntro roll an and/ d/or or re regu gula latte a pu pub bli lic c prope ropert rty y which ich belongs to it, and the Homeowners whose association dues were the ones used to construct and implement the said project. 15.. La 15 Last stly ly,, pu publ blic ic resp respon onde dent nts s ar are e guil guilty ty of vi viol olat atin ing g R. R.A. A. 6713 67 13 othe otherw rwis ise e kn know own n as th the e Code Code of Cond Conduc uctt and and Ethical Standards for Public Oicials and Employees particularly to on Public SectiInterest on 4, and parparagraph agraph (a(b) ) on on Commitment Professionalism. The totality of the public respondents’ actions when they issued the locational clearance show that th at th they ey fail failed ed to up upho hold ld publi public c in inte tere rest st over over thei theirr own ow n. Th Thei eirr action tions s pr prim ima ari rily ly contr ontrib ibut uted ed to the the wastage of government funds as the City of Mandaue will now have to be burdened with additional expenses to ensure that it reclaims the right over the parcel of  land where a clear clearance ance was given for a private project to be conducted despite its illegality. In light of their actions, it is obvious that public respondents clearly and denitely failed to discharge their duty with the highes high estt de degr gree ee of exce excell llen ence ce and and prof profes essi sion onal alis ism, m, inttel in elli lige gen nce an and d skil illl wh when en the hey y issu issued ed the said said locational clearance. 16.. In vi 16 view ew of the fo fore rego goin ing g fa fact cts, s, I resp respec ectf tful ully ly pra pray y of  this th is Ho Hono nora rabl ble e O Oic ice e to hold hold publ public ic resp respon onde dent nts s Renato A. Bate and Archt. Marlo D. Ocleasa liable for Grave Misconduct, Gross Negligence, violation of R.A. 3019 Section 3 (e) and R.A. 6713 Section 4, paragraphs (a) and (b). 17.. I he 17 here reby by ex exec ecut ute e th this is Co Comp mpla lain intt-A Aida idavi vitt to atte attest st to the th e plaint tr trut uth h of th the e tfo fore rego goin ing gnamed fa cts s an and d lic to respon supp suppor ort t my com compla int aga agains inst her herein ein nafact med public pub res ponden dents ts and for whatever legal purpose this may serve.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto aixed my signature this __________ at the City of Cebu, Philippines. CCC

 Aiant Senior Citizen’s ID No. Mandaue City/Cebu/R-VII

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this _____________ at the City of Cebu, Philippines by aiant who exhi ex hibi bite ted d to me his his ab abov ove e stat stated ed compe compete tent nt evid eviden ence ce of  identity. Doc No.: ; Page No No.: .: ; Book Boo k No No.: .: ; Series of 2018.