Ombudsman denies clerk's motion for reconsideration

CEBU, Philippines - The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas denied the motion for reconsideration filed by revenue collection clerk of Malabuyoc town over his dismissal from service.

Graft investigator Llorene Grace Razo-Ompod found no cogent reason to reverse her earlier ruling dismissing Emerito Devilleres from service after finding him guilty for violation of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

“No new evidence had been discovered which materially affects the decision or grave errors of facts or laws or serious irregularities have been pointed out by respondent as committed by this office, which is prejudicial to his interests,” the order reads.

Devilleres was accused for asking money in exchange of facilitating the transfer of names in several land tax declarations.

In his motion for reconsideration, Devilleres claimed there was no due process saying he never received any communication from the Office of the Ombudsman and was not given an opportunity to refute the charges against him.

Devilleres said he already returned the money to the complainants but Ompod in her decision said the respondent’s allegation that he was deprived of due process was “misleading.”

“Contrary to respondent’s allegation, he clearly received notices from this office requiring him to submit his counter-affidavit. In fact, he asked this Office twice to grant his request for an extension of time to file the same,” she said

Ompod said despite the given time, the respondent still failed to file his counter-affidavit and position paper.

She added that respondent cannot blame the Office of the Ombudsman but himself.

“Respondent therefore, has only himself to blame for losing the said opportunity. He cannot cry foul when he himself is the cause of non-submission of his evidence,” the order reads.

Ompod said that though respondent was able to pay the complainants, the same cannot warrant the reversal of their ruling.

“Respondent’s subsequent payment to complainants Loerque and Peña of the amount taken from them, the same does not invalidate the fact that respondent received several amounts from the complainants in different periods of time in exchange of his promise that he will facilitate the transfer in the several tax declarations in complainant’s respective names,” the order further reads.

Named complaints were Roque Tamayo, Pilar dela Peña, Alberto Devillerea, Conrado Leorque and Renidas Leorque, who said Devilleres asked money from them in exchange for facilitating the transfer of their names in tax declarations of the land they bought. Complainants said they gave a total amount of P15,000 to Devilleres who failed to comply with his promises.

When they wanted to take back the money, complainants said Devilleres failed to return the said amount despite the existence of a promissory note which he signed before Attorney Amado Martinez. — (FREEMAN)