CEBU, Philippines - For lack of substantial evidence, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas dismissed the administrative complaint filed against the municipal assessor of the municipality of Dumanjug.
Graft investigation and prosecution officer Mona Chica Gillamac said that evidence showed respondent Rosario Charito Espantaleon did not participate in the cancellation of tax declaration. She was then cleared from charges of grave misconduct and grave abuse of authority.
“As we consider our findings, nowhere can it be found that respondent committed an act which is a violation of laws or rules or that she has been grossly negligent in the performance of her duties,†the decision read.
Complainant Atty. Dionisio Cañete alleged that sometime in 2002, he bought a parcel of land in Calaboon, Dumanjug, Cebu from Josephine Muñoz and Carmelita Ledesma.
Cañete said that before the Deed of Sale could be notarized, he learned that Lot No. 1457 was a subject of two civil cases. He sold the property back to Muñoz and Ledesma on an installment basis.
Since Muños and Ledesma were unable to pay him in full payment, Cañete said he filed a civil case in court to cancel the transaction and the court decided in his favor.
However, when he caused the execution of the said decision, he was informed by the sheriff that they could not execute the decision because the tax declaration of lot No. 1457 was already transferred, cancelled and declared under the name of Spouses Nilo and Carmencita Liao, who allegedly bought the lot from Muñoz and Ledesma in 2007.
Cañete believed that respondent indeed participated in the transfer and cancellation of tax declaration being the municipal assessor.
In her counter-affidavit, respondent denied the allegation and said that she never participated in the cancellation of tax declaration for lot No. 1457 dated May 27, 2008.
She added that on the date when the tax declaration was cancelled she was on official travel to Cebu City to submit an official report to the Office of the Provincial Assessor.
With the foregoing evidences, Gillamac ruled in favor of the respondent.
“Similarly, owing to her lack of participation on the questioned transaction she cannot be regarded as having abused her authority or having displayed act of cruelty in the course of the performance of her duties. There is therefore no basis to hold respondent liable for grave misconduct and/or grave abuse of authority,†the decision reads. — (FREEMAN)