City treasurer Cuevas: I can’t be sued twice

CEBU, Philippines - Cebu City treasurer Diwa Cuevas appealed for the dismissal of her cases before the Civil Service Commission and the Department of Finance on the grounds of forum shopping and jurisdiction.

Cuevas is facing 38 administrative cases lodged against her by former Cebu south district congressman Tomas Osmeña.

“The respondent (Cuevas) prays that the foregoing cases against her be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, being manifestly defective, premature and patently without merit,” read Cueva’s counter-affidavit with prayer for dismissal.

The counter-affidavits were filed last February 9, 2015 before the CSC and December 29, 2014 before the DOF.

Cuevas claimed that the cases filed before the agencies containing the same complaints or grounds cannot be done.  She added that the complaint-affidavits did not contain certification of non-forum shopping which violates Section 11 of Rule 3 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service.

She stressed that absence of any requirement in the filing of a complaint is “sufficiently cause for the dismissal of the complaint.”

She added that the cases can be dismissed for non-compliance with the requirements of a valid complaint, prematurity and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Moreover, she said the complainant “has miserably failed to overturn” the presumption of regularity, validity and good faith.

Last year, Osmeña filed 12 administrative complaints against Cuevas before CSC-7 and 26 other administrative cases before DOF after the city government earned “adverse opinions” from COA pertaining to the operations and transactions in the past three years.

The complaints, which asked for Cuevas’ termination, stemmed from the 2012 COA report rendering an adverse opinion following the “irregularity, insufficiency and omissions on the various records” of the city government’s transactions at the time Cuevas headed the Accounting Department.

But Cuevas countered that it was a “misguided assumption” that the adverse opinions rendered by COA were conclusive to that effect and for which, the respondent is definitely responsible for, to the exclusion of all other officials. — (FREEMAN)