Saturday, May 10, 2008 City official to appeal SC ruling
CEBU City Assessor Eustaquio Cesa will appeal the Supreme Court en banc ruling upholding his six-month suspension over the “Badana scam” at City Hall.
Cesa said yesterday that he was deeply saddened that the High Court was not convinced of the points he raised.
“Guol kaayo ko. Kinsay dili maguol nga wala man baliha sa Supreme Court ang desisyon (I’m very much saddened by this. Who wouldn’t be when the Supreme Court did not reverse the decision),” he said.
Cesa said he will file a motion for reconsideration as soon as he receives a copy of the decision.
He said he will consult his lawyer, Vicente Espina Jr., in asking for reconsideration.
Irregularity
Cesa was the city treasurer when he was investigated for command responsibility after then payofficer Rosalinda Badana allegedly ran away with some P18.5 million in taxpayers’ money.
In a decision penned by Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, the SC en banc held Cesa liable for “failing to prevent the irregularity that (he) had reason to suspect all along.”
The ruling further said that Cesa “had tolerated the (granting of cash advances to payofficers) and allowed it to wreak havoc on the coffers of the City.”
From Sept. 20, 1995 to March 5, 1998, Badana made cash advances reaching P216 million, and fell short of P18.5 million when audited.
Badana allegedly hid the shortage during cash counts by presenting payrolls and vouchers that had already been previously credited to her account.
The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas had suspended Cesa, City Accountant Edna Jaca and then Cash Division chief Belinda Bacasmas for six months.
Cesa, who already served the suspension, argued against the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA), saying it was reached without due process.
He said he did not grant the actual cash advances as the authority belonged to a higher office.
Cesa also said that his signature appeared in the documents because it was required.
The CA, though, still judged him guilty of failing to supervise Badana, and the SC “found no cogent reason to reverse the appellate court’s ruling.” (RHM)
