The Ombudsman has ordered the suspension of Mayor Jose Montelibano and eight other officials and employees of the Silay City government in Negros Occidental, for simple misconduct in the purchase of diesel fuel in 2007.

The Ombudsman’s decision said they can only be held liable for simple misconduct since it does not appear that the respondents intended to violate the law or to flagrantly disregard established rules and procedures.

A copy of the decision dated January 9, approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on January 30, was furnished the DAILY STAR by the complainant, Silay resident Jose Lindy Chan Jr., who has filed numerous complaints against Silay City officials.

Montelibano yesterday said he has filed a very urgent motion for reconsideration (MR) to the decision with prayer for the issuance of a stay order.

Montelibano had been reelected in 2010 and 2013 so the administrative case against him has been rendered moot and academic by his reelection, the MR said.

The Ombudsman’s decision said that, at the time of Montelibano’s re-election, the electorate could not be presumed to have known of the administrative misconduct during Montelibano’ previous term considering that the administrative case against him and his fellow respondents was filed only on May 5 , 2011.

But Montelibano’s MR cited a Supreme Court ruling stating that the reckoning point is not the date of filing of the complaint but, rather, the date when the questioned transactions were entered into.

Even going by the Ombudsman’s ruling that the electorate could be presumed to have acquired knowledge of the gas purchases on May 5, 2011, the administrative complaint should still be dismissed against Montelibano as it was rendered moot and academic by his re-election during the 2013 elections, the MR added.

Under the doctrine of condonation, the people of Silay have spoken not just once, but twice, that they want Montelibano to continue serving them as their mayor, the MR said.

The MR also asked the Ombudsman to direct the Department of Interior and Local Government to stay the implementation of its January 9 decision on the suspension of Montelibano.

It also asked that the January 9 decision be immediately be dismissed.

The Ombudsman in the January 9 ruling held Montelibano, City Administrator Ignacio Salmingo, City Legal Officer Kara Aimee Quevenco, Pepito Hechanova, Alma dela Cruz, Ricardo Ledesma Jr., Sonia Cordero, Elsie Jimenea and Oliva de la Cruz guilty of simple misconduct.

Montelibano and Bids and Awards Committee members Quevenco and Ledesma were meted the penalty of suspension for three months without pay.

Then BAC chairman Salmingo was suspended for two months without pay, while BAC members Hechanova, Cordero, Jimenea, and Alma and Oliva de la Cruz were suspended for one month without pay.

Since Ledesma has already retired from government, the penalty of suspension against him will be converted into a fine equivalent to his salary for three months payable to the office of the Ombudsman, which will be deducted from his retirement benefits, the Ombudsman’s ruling said.

The charges against respondent BAC members Rene Roy Pahilanga, Giovanni Guzon, Arnie Trajera, Jose Genaro Estranero and Jesus Oppus, and BAC secretariat head and members Macarse Tionko, Armin Paredes, Alore Golez and Wilma Dooma were dismissed for lack of merit.

The complaint lodged against the Silay officials was for the city government’s purchase of 3,000 liters of diesel fuel on Aug. 15, 2007 for P113,490; 20,000 liters for P756,600 on August 17, 2007; and 20,000 liters for P796,600 on Nov. 7,2007.

Montelibano said the purchases took place during the transition period of his administration when he was informed that there were still pending purchases to be made primarily for the city’s school buses, garbage trucks and other vital government vehicles.

The Ombudsman’s decision said direct contracting was not the proper mode for the procurement of diesel fuel for the Silay City government.

As to the allegation of overpricing, the Ombudsman said there is merit in the respondents’ defense that the purchases were made on credit for which the cost of money must be taken into consideration.

The charge of dishonesty prejudicial to the best interest of the service must fail, there being no showing of either concealment or violation of public accountability on the part of the mayor and the respondent members of the BAC, the decision said.*CPG

back to top