THE graft and corruption cases against former Cebu City Legal Office (CCLO) officer-in-charge Carlo Vincent Gimena and 11 other lawyers were dismissed for lack of merit.
A notice letter dated Aug. 9, 2024, signed by Sarah Jo Vergara, acting director of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas’ Case Records Evaluation, Monitoring and Enforcement Bureau, ordered the dismissal of the complaint of the Doña Rita Village Association of Cebu Inc. (DRVACI) represented by its president Albert Tan against Gimena and 11 other lawyers.
The other respondents were Shana Alexandra Perez, Manuel Degollacion, Ramon Mikhail Duyongco, Arthcris Cuadra, Jave Mike Aton, Luigine Christi Chan, Glace Ongcoyo-Ravanes, Feliciano Alinson, Bernard Inocentes Garcia, Eleodoro Diaz and Lyndon Bernardo Basan.
The homeowners association based in Barangay Banilad, Cebu City, has lodged a complaint before the Ombudsman-Visayas on May 6, 2024, requesting the office to investigate the legal opinions issued by Gimena and the other lawyers which they claimed as “highly discreditable, improper, and irregular.”
The complainant alleged that the respondents favored Miradel Development Corp., also known as Miradel, to construct a commercial arcade on their lots located within the subdivision.
According to evaluators’ report dated June 24, 2024, Gimena and other Cebu City lawyers rendered legal opinion as part of their official duties and responsibilities.
In a phone interview on Friday, Aug. 23, Gimena told SunStar Cebu that the Ombudsman has based its ruling on the presumption of regularity.
“Kon tan-awon based sa atung (legal) opinion-based man gud siya sa balaod, sa ordinansa nato. Kon tan-awon sa Ombudsman, conclusive na ning presumption of regularity sa among performance sa pag-render sa mga opinions namo,” Gimena said.
If you consider it from a legal perspective, our opinions are based on the law and our ordinance. If the Ombudsman reviews it, the Presumption of Regularity is conclusive in our performance when rendering our opinions.)
“There is no clear and convincing evidence to prove otherwise,” he added.
The DRVACI, in its complaint, said that the respondents “blatantly twisted legal provisions” that only support their “erroneous” conclusion, which shows “manifest partiality and evident bad faith.”
The complainant contended that the Cebu City Legal Office’s legal opinions dated Jan. 22, Feb. 19, and March 25, 2024, supported Miradel’s construction of a commercial building on company-owned lots.
On the other hand, the homeowner’s association objected to the project, stating that Miradel-owned lots inside the village were designated as residential.
Through a motion for reconsideration, the DRVACI repeatedly questioned the CCLO’s opinions in favor of Miradel, emphasizing that the homeowners’ association’s approval was unnecessary because Miradel lots had already been reclassified as commercial in 1996 under Cebu City Zoning Ordinance, or City Ordinance 1656.
The CCLO recommended that the Zoning Ordinance remain enforceable notwithstanding the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Homeowners’ Magna Carta from 2011 and 2019 requiring consent prior to reclassification.
According to Gimena, the Ombudsman had not even requested an explanation from them about the complaint.
He clarified that the complainant could not prove that their legal conclusions were unlawful or erroneous.
For the Ombudsman, what we did is legal, lawful, valid, and regular,” Gimena said.
Gimena is no longer the OIC of the Cebu City Legal Office since Aug. 7, after being replaced by lawyer Santiago Ortiz. / EHP