By Joel R. San Juan - September 2, 2018
THE Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed the dismissal of 18
officials and employees of the Provincial Government of Palawan involved in the
anomalous use of the province’s share in the Malampaya Fund amounting to P2.57
billion.
The CA’s Special 17th Division denied the petition filed by
officials and employees seeking the reversal of the Ombudsman’s decision issued
on November 21, 2014, which found them administratively liable and dismissed
from the service.
The Ombudsman also ordered the cancellation of their
eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from
holding public office and bar them from taking civil-service examinations.
Covered by the Ombudsman’s ruling were: Renato Abrina,
engineer IV; Rolando Bonoan Jr., Sangguniang Panlalawigan member; Bayani
Buenaventura, engineer III; Manuela Cabiguen, assistant provincial
engineer-administration/inspectorate team leader; Orlando Colobong, provincial
accountant; Ronelo del Socorro, senior technical audit specialist; Ferdinand
Dilig, provincial general; Pedro Gatinga Jr., engineer IV; Edwin Iglesia, state
auditor II; Romeo Llacuna, Engineer III; Samuel Madamba II, former provincial
planning and development coordinator; Luis Marcaida, provincial budget officer;
Alfredo Padua, engineer IV/chief quality control division, Tommy Panes,
engineer II; Rosario Pascual-Abacial, engineer II; Pepe Martinez Patacsil,
engineer IV; Federico Rubio Jr., assistant provincial
engineer-operation/inspectorate team leader; Bernard Zambales, engineer III and
Elena Rodriguez, former provincial legal officer.
In a 33-page decision penned by Associate Justice Mario V.
Lopez, the CA upheld the Ombudsman’s ruling against all the respondents except
for Rodriguez.
The CA held that the Ombudsman’s November 21, 2014,
consolidated decision exonerating Rodriguez from administrative accountability
is final and “unappealable” due to the failure of complainant Commission on
Audit (COA) Chairman Ma. Gracia Pulido-Tan to appeal the dismissal of the
charges.
“Given the finality of the consolidated decision with
respect to Elena, the September 13, 2016, order reversing the decision and
penalizing Elena [Rodriguez] for grave misconduct, serious dishonest and gross
neglect of duty is erroneous,” the CA said.
The appellate court did not give merit to the claim of
respondents that the investigation of the Ombudsman was premature since under
COA’s Rules and Regulation on Settlement of Accounts, an audit report should be
followed by notices of disallowances (NDs), which may be appealed within
six months.
No comments:
Post a Comment