Ombudsman sustains Rosario vs. MetroState
OVER NON-ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
THE Office of the Ombudsman for Luzon dismissed the criminal and administrative complaints filed against Dagupan City Engineer Virginia Rosario in connection with her refusal in early 2007 to issue a building permit to the company that was then building the MetroState Plaza in front of city hall.
The complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Grave Abuse of Authority and Misconduct was filed in 2007 by Gregorio Almonte, project foreman of MetroState Realty Corporation, after Rosario refused to issue a building permit to the firm’s project.
Rosario eventually ordered the company to stop the construction of the project that year and her order was upheld during the entire three-year term of then Mayor Alipio Fernandez Jr.
MetroState, however, has since resumed the construction under the Lim administration and the building is nearing completion.
The company recently resumed construction after it was able to secure a building permit under Mayor Benjamin Lim who assumed his post in July 2010.
The building permit was issued by an officer-in-charge, not by Rosario who was at that time on personal leave and was out of the country.
The dismissal, citing “lack of probable cause and substantial evidence”, was contained in a joint resolution signed by Ismael Boco, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer, concurred by Joaquin Salazar, Acting Director of the Evaluation and Investigation, and recommended by Mark Jalandoni, Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon.
The anti-graft body said the records of the case do not show any indication that Rosario “was motivated with manifest partiality and evident bad faith” in requiring a Sangguniang Panlungsod resolution before she can issue a building permit.
It also said there was no evidence to establish that Rosario’s actions manifested partiality and that she was favoring any party.
The charge for Abuse of Authority or Misconduct was also dismissed for lack of substantial evidence.
In its joint resolution, the Ombudsman declared that respondent Rosario cannot be indicted even if MetroState incurred expenses in securing various licenses and proceeded with its construction without a building permit.
BUILDING CODE
“Respondent cannot be faulted when she ordered the stoppage of the construction,” the decision said, citing the provision in the National Building Code that states that no construction can start without a building permit.
The Ombudsman also determined that even before the issuance of building permit, MetroState already commenced construction of the building.
Records of the case showed that MetroState applied for a building permit on March 19, 2007, which was way ahead of the date of the invitation to bid made by the local government during the months of April and May 2007.
The affidavit-complaint of Almonte claims that the company secured a building permit on March 19, 2007.
On the contention of the complainant that an SP resolution is not a requirement for the issuance of a building permit, the Ombudsman said, “True enough, the submission of resolution (of the SP) is not required under the said provision. However, we lend credence to the claim of the respondent that the said requirements are necessary only if the construction will be done on a private lot… requirements are not exclusive in view of the word “AT LEAST: which means that a building official may require additional requirements.”
The graft body said this is especially true since the construction is vested with public interest and would involve expenditure of public funds.
NO AUTHORITY
The Ombudsman also asserted that the mayor, who at that time was Lim, had no authority to enter into a contract with MetroState.
The claimed resolution was not signed by the author or authors, nor was it stamped with the seal of the sanggunian and recorded in a book kept for the purpose.
Share your Comments or Reactions
Powered by Facebook Comments
