Department of Justice Secretary Leila De Lima has junked the Feb. 17, 2012 request for reconsiderationof Monico Puentevella of the Jan. 27, 2012 DOJ decision dismissing the appeal filed by Rolling Hills Memorial Park Inc. against the City Government of Bacolod.

The appeal was in relation to City Ordinance No. 565, series of 2011, or “An Ordinance Approving the Revised Local Revenue Code of Bacolod City.”

De Lima anchored her denial of Puentevella’s appeal on his failure to still submit the required documents and pay the U.P Legal Research fee amounting to P25, and also because the case was already filed by RHMPI against the City Government in the Regional Trial Court.

Bacolod Mayor Evelio Leonardia said “I somehow expected De Lima’s denial because Puentevella did not comply with the requirements.”

“It was quite apparent that Puentevella was doing a political stunt when Rolling Hills filed the DOJ petition ahead of the business group,” he said. “Clearly, his propaganda stunt was a big flop,” he added.

Leonardia said the Bacolod Sangguniang Panlungsod passed the Revenue Code in the proper way, and so the position of the City will prevail in the end.

Vice Mayor Jude Thaddeus Sayson, meanwhile, welcomed De Lima’s denial of Puentevella’s appeal, saying, “Monico got what he deserves.”

Sayson added, “I am confident that both the Justice Department and the court will rule in favor of the City Government because the Revenue Code was formulated and passed by the SP in accordance with the processes prescribed by law.”

In her letter, De Lima told Puentevella that “…after meticulously studying the arguments raised in your letter, the appeal must still fail. The reason being that the appeal was never perfected, even belatedly, for your failure to comply with Sections 3 and 4 of this Department’s Circular No. 21 dated 15 July 1992 as what we have stated in your Decision. Specifically, it is your failure to attach a true copy of the tax ordinance in question and to subsequently pay the P25 U.P. Legal Research Fee.”

De Lima mentioned that ‘As held by the Supreme Court in the case ofAcena vs CSCcitingOzaeta v. Court of Appeals: “…the right to appeal is a statutory right and the party who seeks to avail himself of the same must comply with the requirements of the law. Failure to do so, the right to appeal is lost.”’

NO FURTHER ACTION

“In deference, and out of courtesy to the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod which has acquired jurisdiction over the issues which were similarly raised in your appeal, we are constrained to decline further action on the matter,” De Lima added.*CGS

back to top