THE Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed its decision issued early this year clearing the former officials of state-owned Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) of administrative culpabilities in connection with its dispute with Camp John Hay Development Corp. (CJHDevco) over the development of the 247-hectare rest and recreation site in Baguio City.
In a two-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Renato Francisco, the CA’s former Seventh Division said the petitioner CJHDevco failed to raise new arguments that would warrant the reversal of its January 23, 2018 decision.
In the said ruling, the CA affirmed the resolution issued by the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing the administrative complaint filed by the petitioner accusing the BCDA board of gross inexcusable negligence and causing delays in the issuance of permits and clearances to CJHDevco.
Cleared of any administrative liabilities were former BCDA chairmen Arnel Paciano Casanova and Felicito Payumo and former directors Zorayda Amelia Alonzo, Teresita Desierto, Ma. Aurora Geotina-Garcia, Ferdinand Golez, Elmar Gomez and Maximo Sangil.
The Ombudsman held that CJHDevco failed to sufficiently establish that respondents delayed and/or refused to perform their obligations under the restructuring memorandum of agreement (RMOA).
“A perusal of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, however, reveals rehashed arguments that had already been exhaustively discussed and squarely passed upon by this Court in the decision sought to be reconsidered,” the CA ruled.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Japar Dimaampao and Rodil Zalameda.
Under the RMOA, CJHDevco agreed to settle its prior rental obligation to BCDA in the amount of P2.68 billion, while the latter was obliged to maintain a One-Stop Action Center with full authority to process and issue all permits, certificates and licenses from all government agencies and for Osac to issue them within 30 days from the complete submission of all required documents. In its January 23 decision, the CA explained there is no basis to reverse the ruling of the Ombudsman since it is supported by the evidence
on record. It noted that the dispute between CJHDevco and BCDA hinged on who actually defaulted in their contractual obligations under the RMOA.
The CA held that CJHDevco failed to sufficiently show the refusal or withholding of the issuance of petitioner’s documents was unjustified.