(This is a sequel to past articles regarding complaints of Maranaws against the Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation)

B. Local governments do not benefit from the operation of the corporation. According to the documents provided by residents to this column, while the corporation operates in the town of Malabang and part of Marogong and Sultan Gumander, it pays its taxes not to these local governments but elsewhere.

They claimed that: "Since time immemorial, it earned billions of pesos but the corresponding taxes like income, percentage and real property taxes are allegedly paid not in Malabang, Lanao del Sur (principal place of business) but in Metro Manila, depriving the latter LGU (part of BARMM) of so much needed revenue that should have alleviated and uplifted the economic development and progress of the town and the Autonomous Bangsamoro."

Is this fair? While the natural wealth belongs to and should be enjoyed by the local residents, some outliers benefit from them. Are they classified as "large taxpayers" by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, in which case they can pay it in Metro Manila?

C. Local residents are not benefitted by the operation of the corporation in terms of employment. Local Maranaw residents decry the fact that employment at Matling is not offered to them but to others who are not local residents. In fact, hordes of Maguindanaoans have established a community in the area because of their employment in the corporation to the prejudice of the native residents. Were local residents discriminated against in jobs generated by the operation of the company? What happened to the social responsibility of corporations?

D. Alleged violations of the Labor Code. An unfair labor practice case was filed by the workers against the corporation before the National Labor Relations Commission entitled "Khadafy Taha, et al. vs. Matling Industrial Commercial Corporation, docketed as NLRC Case No. MAC_01-017279, Cagayan de Oro NLRC."

Among the questions litigated was the workers' employment status—whether there existed an employer-employee relationship. Allegedly, the company claimed that they were contract or seasonal hires who could be terminated at anytime, a claim disputed by the workers. We cannot discuss the merits of the case which is pending and is sub judice. However, while the laborers partly won the case, its execution in their favor has been unduly delayed and they suspect that the company had a hand in it.