The Court of Appeals has sustained the resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman ordering the dismissal of 18 officials and employees of the Provincial Government of Palawan for their role in the anomalous use of the province share in the Malampaya fund amounting to P2.57 billion.
In a 33-page decision, the CA’s Special Seventeenth Division through Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez dismissed the petition filed by Palawan government officials and employees seeking the reversal of the Ombudsman’s decision issued on Nov. 21, 2014. The Ombudsman found them administratively liable and dismissed them from the service.
The anti-graft body 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.
The appellate court upheld the findings and recommendation of the Ombudsman against Ronelo del Socorro, senior technical audit specialist; Edwin Iglesia, state auditor II; Romeo Llacuna, Engineer III; Bernard Zambales, Engineer III; Ferdinand Dilig, provincial general; Luis Marcaida, provincial budget officer; Rolando Bonoan Jr., Sangguniang Panlalawigan member; Elena Rodriguez; former provincial legal officer; Samuel Madamba II, former provincial planning and development coordinator; Orlando Colobong, provincial accountant; Renato Abrina, engineer IV; Manuela Cabiguen, assistant provincial engineer-administration/inspectorate team leader; Federico Rubio, Jr., assistant provincial engineer-operation/inspectorate team leader; Rosario Pascual-Abacial, engineer II; Pedro Gatinga Jr., engineer IV; Tommy Panes, engineer II; Bayani Buenaventura, engineer III; Pepe Martinez Patacsil, engineer IV; and Alfredo Padua, engineer IV/chief, quality control division.
The court, however, exonerated Elena Rodriguez after complainant Commission on Audit chairperson Ma. Gracia Pulido-Tan failed to appeal the dismissal of the charges against her.
“Given the finality of the consolidated decision with respect to Elena, the September 13, 2016 order reversing the decision and penalizing Elena for grave misconduct, serious dishonest and gross neglect of duty is erroneous,” the appellate court stressed.
In ruling against the other petitioners, the CA rejected their assertion that the investigation of the Ombudsman was premature since under Commission on Audit’s Rules and Regulation on Settlement of Accounts, an audit report should be followed by notices of disallowances, which may be appealed within six months.
The respondents noted that even before the NDs were issued, the Ombudsman already conducted an investigation against them.
The appellate court stressed that under the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the agency can investigate and prosecute on its own, or on complaint by any person, any illegal or improper action of any public officer or employee.
“Thus, the Ombudsman may undertake its own preliminary investigation and give due course to the complaint against petitioners even before the issuance of the notices of disallowance or final audit report by CoA,” the CA ruled.
“Although the CoA report may aid the Ombudsman in conducting its investigation, such report is not indispensable,” the appellate court said.
The CA found no basis for the petitioners’ argument that they were deprived of due process as a result of the failure of CoA to properly inform them of the charges.
“Here, the petitioners cannot complaint that they were deprived of due process considering that they each filed their counter-affidavits, actively participated in the proceedings, and filed a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s decision,” the CA noted.
The appellate court also did not give weight to the claim of the respondents that the findings of the Ombudsman were not supported by substantial evidence.
The COA was able to establish that the respondents failed to comply or present documents proving compliance with the bidding requirements, the CA said.
The appellate court added that there was also sufficient evidence showing that the respondents repeatedly bloated their accomplishment reports that cost government millions of pesos in advance payments to undeserving contractors.
Associate Justices Victoria Isabel Paredes and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy concurred with the ruling.
Court record showed that on July 25, 2007, the national government entered into a provisional implementation agreement (PIA) with the provincial government of Palawan allowing the province to use its share in the Malampaya fund amounting to P2.572 billion.
The money were utilized to finance various programs involving health care service, educational enhancement, early childhood development care, barangay electrification projects, and construction of intermodal transport and infrastructures.
In 2011, the COA-Fraud Audit and Investigation Office (FAIO) reported that provincial officials and members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) failed to observe the rules on bidding and that there was delay in the completion of projects.
