MANILA – Pasig City’s Mayor Vico Sotto was slapped with several complaints for allegedly granting illegal discount to telecommunications provider Converge.
Among the cases filed against Sotto and two others are graft, violation of the code of conduct for public officials, grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
In his complaint, Pasig City resident Ethelmart Cruz accused Sotto, Business Permit and Licensing Department (BPLD) personnel Melanie de Mesa, and City Administrator Jeronimo Manzanero of illegally granting a 100% discount on Converge’s waiver of penalties as the telecommunications provider accumulated business tax amounting to P3.67 billion in 2022.
He stated in the complaint that the P3.67 billion business tax dues included surcharge and interest due to Converge’s under-declaration of the extent of its operations, in particular the number of its employees and the size of its office space.
Cruz alleged that, since 2018, Converge has been declaring that its office space is 12 square meters with four to five employees when it is employing more than 2,000 employees, and occupying four floors of office space.
“Converge was granted a full 100% discount, despite the fact that the Office of the Mayor is not authorized to grant a full 100%, causing injury to the Local Government of the City of Pasig City as the latter was practically deprived of the right to generate additional income and control and/or regulate a property which belongs to its jurisdiction,” the complaint read.
The complainant also said that while Section 358 shows that the imposition of taxes, fees, and charges, including surcharges and interests for late payment, is mandatory, and only discounts, not waivers, may be granted.
“Clearly, the authority of respondent Mayor Sotto is only to grant a deduction from the amount of obligation assessed by [the city’s] business permit and licensing office. Glaringly, nowhere in Ordinance No. 51 was the Office of the Mayor allowed to grant a full 100% discount,” the complaint stated.
The acts of Sotto and two others should be seen as blatant support to a private company’s fraudulent acts against the local government since “it is a well-established rule in the law on taxation that there is a presumption of falsity of return when there is a substantial under-declaration of taxable assets, receipt or income of more than 30%.”
“Even assuming that Converge did not intend to commit fraud in under-declaring its number of employees and the size of its office, the patent discrepancy between what Converge reported and what was actually true should have prevented Converge from enjoying any discount,” Cruz said.
“In view of the foregoing facts, I respectfully pray of this Honorable Office to hold respondents liable for violations of Republic Act 3019 Section 3 (e) and RA 6713 Section 4, paragraphs (a) and (b), as well as grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and dishonesty,” Cruz added./PN
