AFTER the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition from Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama’s camp, which sought to halt the implementation of his and seven other officials’ preventive suspension, Rama’s camp filed another manifestation along with a motion to lift the order of preventive suspension.
This time, the manifestation was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman in Diliman, Quezon City, on Tuesday, May 28, 2024.
Rama and the seven other city officials, in their 44-page manifestation, maintained that the Ombudsman’s suspension order, or the “assailed” order, is solely based on the “uncontroverted and biased” information provided in the joint complaint affidavit of the complainants dated Feb. 23.
The Office of the Ombudsman ordered a six-month preventive suspension for Rama, City Administrator Collin Rosell, Office of the City Assessor Officer-in-Charge Dr. Maria Theresa Rosell, Francis May Jacaban of the City Legal Office, Assistant Department Head for Operations Angelique Cabugao, Admin Division Head Jay-ar Pescante, Assessment of Records Management Division Head Lester Joey Beniga, and Computer Division Head Nelyn Sanrojo for failing to pay the salaries of four city employees.
This stemmed from the Feb. 23 criminal and administrative complaint filed by the four employees, Sybil Ann Ybañez, Filomena Atuel, Maria Almicar Diongzon, and Chito dela Cerna, against city officials for alleged violations of Section 3(e) and (1) of Republic Act 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as well as charges of grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a public officer, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, grave abuse of authority (oppression), and violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
Rama’s camp, however, said the pending petitions for review with the Civil Service Commission concerning the reassignment orders should have prompted the Ombudsman to “refrain from taking any further action on the complaint.”
Rama’s camp also said it is not true that complainants’ salaries were withheld from them, as they were even partly paid as of May 3, 2024, before the assailed order was issued.
Rama’s camp, in their counter-affidavit, said that the previously reported 10 months of unpaid salaries is incorrect, as their salaries for January to April 2024 were paid, and those for July to December 2023 were processed by April 24, 2024.
“It behooves this Honorable Office to consider the facts stated in the counter-affidavits vis-a-vis the facts stated in the complaint and determine which is more credible,” reads a portion of the motion to lift the order of preventive suspension.
Rama also highlighted that all necessary documents proving the payments of salaries have already been submitted, eliminating any reason to continue the preventive suspension as there is no risk of document tampering.
Rama and other officials filed their counter-affidavit on May 24.
CA dismissal
To recall, the CA, in a May 17, 2024 resolution, dismissed the petition of Rama and seven other suspended city officials to restrain the Ombudsman from enforcing a six-month preventive suspension, for lack of meritorious grounds.
The CA noted that the petitioners did not seek a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s order dated May 2, before filing the petition with them.
A motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
“Although, the Court has recognized exceptions to the requirement, petitioner failed to allege meritorious grounds in the petition why it was not availed of before filing the instant petition,” reads a portion of the CA resolution.
The CA also noted the petitioners neglected to provide the original transaction receipts from the private courier as proof of mailing the petition and that the assailed Ombudsman order attached to the petition is a mere photocopy. / AML