|
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Businessman alleges usurpation of authority
After being charged repeatedly, MCIAA General Manager Adelberto Yap was again charged the other day, together with his legal official Siegfredo Dublin, for asking the court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO).
The complainant alleged that Yap no longer has the legal personality to ask the court for a restraining order.
Last June 5, 2006 businessman Cris Saavedra filed at the Ombudsman office-Visayas usurpation of authority complaint against Yap for misrepresenting himself as a general manager, when he asked the Court of Appeals for a TRO.
The complainant also charged Dublin with Violation of Anti-Graft and corrupt practices as he prepared Yap’s application for TRO. The complainant alleged that Dublin used government’s resources for this petition knowing that Yap is no longer the general manager.
CSC disapproved Yap’s temporary appointment and denied his motion for reconsideration. On May 30 the commission served the order and asked MCIAA board to terminate the manager.
But on June 1, 2006 the Court of Appeals Special 18th division issued a 60-day TRO enjoining the Civil Service Commission (CSC) from enforcing its decision and resolution.
Associate Justice Apolinario Bruselas, Executive Justice Arsenio Magpale and Associate Justice Isaias Dicdican signed the TRO/Resolution.
Saavedra alleged in his complaintthat Yap is no longer authorized to petition the court to issue TRO.
When asked if Yap is the authorized to petition the court, CSC regional director David Cabanag Jr., said it is up to the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas to rule on the matter since it was filed in that office.
Cabanag believed that the crucial period lies between May 30, when they served the order to MCIAA board, and on June 1 when Court of Appeals restrained CSC from enforcing its order.
He said it was between these dates when Yap filed the petition for a restraining order.
When sought for his reaction, Yap said that at the time when he petitioned the court for a restraining order, it was still within that three-day period given by the commission to MCIAA board to answer on what action have they done. So during that time he was still the general manager.
Saavedra in his complaint maintained that Yap ceased to become the general manager after the commission disapproved his temporary appointment.
But Yap said no. He said CSC is giving MCIAA board three days to answer. So the CSC order cannot yet be implemented between those dates.
He added that even the three days given by CSC is arbitrary. The law gives anyone an ample time, much longer than the three-day period, to answer allegations raised against anyone.
Cabanag stressed it is now the Ombudsman who will determine if Yap is authorized or not to petition the court for a restraining order.
He said CSC served its final order last May 30, and gave MCIAA board of directors three days to inform them on what action had been done, said Cabanag.
The commission passed to MCIAA board the responsibility of terminating Yap.
Saavedra further stated in his complaint that the TRO should be filed against MCIAA board of directors and not against CSC. (OCP)
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (June 7, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
