City official, fire marshal cleared of admin raps

CEBU, Philippines - The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas has cleared the Cebu City building official and a fire marshal of administrative liability over their alleged failure to act promptly on requests aired before their offices.

The anti-graft office dismissed for lack of evidence the complaint of grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty and inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties against Cebu City Building Official Jose Marie Poblete and City Fire Marshal Rogelio Bongabong Jr.

The case stemmed from the complaint of a certain Donald James filed before the Ombudsman on April 8 last year.

James claimed he filed the complaint after noting a Building Code violation allegedly committed by the developer of the condominium unit he was occupying in 2012. The decision issued by the Ombudsman did not, however, specifically indicate the nature of violation supposedly committed.

After looking into the allegation, then City Building official Kenneth Carmelita Enriquez issued two building suspension orders and a notice of violation against the developer.

Despite the orders, the developer allegedly did not stop construction which prompted him to secure building plans of the condominium to ensure that the building was structurally sound. He requested documents from the Bureau of Fire Protection and the Office of the Building Official, but the requests were allegedly ignored.

In 2014, James again requested from BFP, which was already headed by Bongabong, a copy of all documents concerning the construction of the said condominium.

He also wrote a letter to the OBO, already headed by Poblete, asking for copies of the plans, applications, built-up plans and certificate of occupancy of the developer. The officials allegedly did not furnish him the documents requested.

In his counter-affidavit, Bongabong contended that he was not the Cebu City Fire Marshal at the time James sent several letters to the BFP requesting for inspection of the condominium. Nevertheless, he said that he acted on James’s letter but his reply was not claimed.

Bongabong explained that it is the practice of his office to let the requesting party claim documents from his office.

Poblete, on the other hand, insisted that he replied to all the letters of James within the period prescribed by the law.

He said he informed James that his office can only provide copies of official and public documents but not the plans, applications and built-up plans of an applicant for a building permit.

“It is erroneous for complainant (James) to conclude that respondent failed to act promptly on his letters as they had acted on it within the 15-day period,” the anti-graft office stated in its decision.

What the law requires for public employee, it added, is to act promptly on letters and requests of the public within 15 working days from receipt of such requests.

“It does not require that the action must always be favorable to the requesting party… The refusal of the respondents (Poblete and Bongabong) to give him the documents he requested does not necessarily amount to commission of the administrative offenses (filed by James),” it explained. — (FREEMAN)