The Supreme Court First Division denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by former mayor and now Bacolod Rep. Evelio Leonardia of its resolution dated April 21, 2014 which denied the petition for review on certiorari, in the case involving the Bacolod City Government Center project.

This means that the case will now be sent back to the Regional Trial Court for resolution.

The case filed by Miguel Carriedo, Jesus Lazaro, Ben Solilapsi, Allan Calilan and Abraham Tingson, against Leonardia et al., challenged the legality of the contract for the construction and site development of the BCGC.

Jesus Hinlo, legal counsel of Carriedo, said Civil Case No. 07-12940, which was previously dismissed by the Regional Trial Court Branch 44 of Bacolod on the ground that Carriedo and his co-plaintiffs, are not real party in interest, will now be remanded back to RTC 44 for further proceedings.

The case will now proceed with the RTC where they will use the evidence of Leonardia, which is the Commission on Audit report that contains its admission that R.A. 9184 has been violated, he said during a press conference with Carriedo and the Serve the People Association for Reform Inc..

The press conference was on the decision of the SC that emanated from Carriedo's complaint involving the alleged questionable cost and process in the construction of the BCGC constructed by Hilmarc's Construction Corporation  amounting to about P394 million during the Leonardia administration.

Hinlo said this has proven their claim that the law has been violated on this project citing R.A. 9184.

Joselito Bayatan, legal counsel of Bacolod Rep. Evelio Leonardia said, “We welcome the resolution of the Supreme Court dated October 8, 2014: this will now  pave the way  to  finally put  to rest all the questions about the construction of   the New Government Center.”

“NOTHING ANOMALOUS”

Bayatan said the SC resolution sends the case back to the courts, which had earlier sought a final decision from the Commission on Audit on the matter. That decision, which had come while the matter was in the SC, had cleared the construction of the BCGC.

The final COA decision, signed by chairman Gracia Pulido Tan and the rest of the commissioners, dated Sept. 3,2014, said there was nothing anomalous in the BCGC construction, he said. 

Bayatan said the Ombudsman had also rendered a decision on the same set of facts: there was nothing anomalous in the BCGC  construction. The Ombudsman had even added the observation that the cases against the BCGC were “politically motivated.”

“The courts await these decisions, and given these, we are confident they will throw out all questions about the BCGC,” he said.

Bayatan said the SC move of Oct. 8, 2014 was just a “resolution” that simply means that they have to present these indisputable findings of the COA and Ombudsman that there is no anomaly in all the stages of the contracts for the construction of the NGC  from inception to the time it was finished.*CGS

back to top