Over alleged processing delays: Complaint filed against 5 CENRO Argao personnel

CEBU, Philippines — A landowner has filed an administrative complaint against five personnel of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) in Argao, Cebu, accusing them of procedural lapses, undue delays, and other acts that allegedly prejudiced her applications involving several properties in Carcar City.

In her complaint-affidavit, Maria Rhiza C. Austin named the respondents: Vicente Rustico M. Calizar, CENRO Argao officer; Melchor Rhept Sarmago, land management officer; Balbina O. Pantinople, OIC-records officer; Esabelita Elloran Tanga Mier, land management inspector; and Frailen C. Bontia, also a land management inspector.

Austin accused the respondents of violating Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; Republic Act 11032, or the Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act of 2018; Republic Act 9485; and Republic Act 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

The complaint stemmed from Austin’s applications for survey authority and free patents covering portions of Lot Nos. 1341, 1342, 1345, 1346, 1286, and 1226 in Barangay Bolinawan, Carcar City.

Austin claimed she acquired the properties from Epifania Lucero through deeds of absolute sale and other documents that, she said, establish her ownership and possession.

She said she authorized Arthuro Galanida Jr. through a special power of attorney to process the necessary documents before government agencies, including CENRO Argao.

According to Austin, Galanida began processing the applications in May 2025. She said Mier initially provided a list of documentary requirements but subsequently required additional documents, including an index of decree and a non-issuance of notice of coverage from the Department of Agrarian Reform.

Austin alleged that the additional requirements were requested in installments, which caused delays in the processing of her applications.

She also claimed that despite submitting various documents, Mier failed to issue written acknowledgments, receiving copies, or stamps to establish that the documents had been officially received by the office.

Austin said the remaining requirements were submitted on April 7, 2026, after which Mier informed her representative that geotagging activities would be conducted on April 28 for Lots 1286, 1346, and 1342.

On May 5, 2026, however, Austin said Mier informed her that survey authorities had already been issued for Lots 1286 and 1346, while her application involving Lot 1342 could not be processed or could be rejected because Lucero had a pending free patent application covering the entire lot.

Austin questioned the development, saying her application for a survey authority over the portion of Lot 1342 had been initiated in 2025.

She said she had submitted a deed of absolute sale covering the 7,760-square-meter portion sold to her by Lucero and that the tax declaration for the portion was already in her name.

Austin also questioned why Lucero’s application covering the entire Lot 1342 remained pending despite the portion allegedly having been sold to her.

She similarly disputed the claim that Lucero had filed a free patent application for Lot 1341 ahead of her.

The dispute prompted CENRO Argao to conduct a clarificatory conference on June 11, 2026.

Austin said Sarmago admitted during the conference that her applications involving Lots 1342, 1286, and 1346 had been reviewed as early as October 20, 2025 but were not properly recorded in the office’s official records.

Sarmago allegedly also confirmed that only Lot 1345 had been entered in the Allocation Book in Austin’s favor, while applications for free patents covering Lots 1341 and 1342 had already been entered in Lucero’s favor.

According to Austin, Sarmago acknowledged that procedural lapses had occurred within the office and expressed uncertainty about how multiple entries involving the same properties had been processed.

Austin argued that the alleged failure to acknowledge documents, properly record applications, and provide timely written action resulted in delays and prejudice to her applications and property rights.

She alleged that the circumstances showed “manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence,” resulting in undue injury to her and allegedly giving an unwarranted benefit or advantage to another applicant.

She cited Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, which penalizes public officers who cause undue injury to any party or give a private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

Austin also cited RA 6713, particularly its provision requiring public officials and employees to perform their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence, and skill.

She asked that the five respondents be investigated and, after due proceedings, be held administratively and criminally liable for the alleged acts and omissions.

The respondents could not immediately be reached for comment as of press time.

Calizar had already been transferred from CENRO Argao to the Negros Island Region at the time this report was written. — (FREEMAN)