In a resolution approved by Ombudsman Aniano Desierto last Jan. 12 and released yesterday, the charges against Ubana were dismissed based on findings that the mayor acted in good faith in signing a deed of donation and that a lease contract he approved was not disadvantageous to the government.
The Ombudsman even commended Ubana for signing documents that "redounded to the benefits of the municipality" and for taking "steps as may be necessary to protect the interests of his municipality more particularly his constituents" that include about 2,000 senior citizens who will benefit most.
The charges, filed by Lopez Vice Mayor Joedil Barros and several municipal councilors, involved a deed of donation of an 800-square meter lot to be used for a Senior Citizens Center and a contract of lease of heavy equipment and dumptrucks.
Ubana’s accusers, all political rivals, alleged that both the deed of donation and the lease contract were signed by him without prior authorization from the local Sangguniang Bayan.
The Ombudsman, however, gave credence to Ubana’s defense of good faith when he immediately submitted to the Sanggunian for authorization a draft agreement he had to enter in 1999 with donor Sena Flores who was leaving for Canada.
Ubana said his town will stand to lose P600,000 released by the Department of Social Welfare and Development for the construction of the center if the deed of donation will be not signed before Flores left abroad.
Ubana added he signed the document with the understanding that such would only be a "provisional agreement" pending his acquisition of authority from the town council.
As to the lease contract, Ubana said he relied on the existence of Sanggunian Bayan Resolution No. 91 passed on March 5, 1996 granting the mayor the authority to enter a lease contract "as long as the terms and conditions stated on the contract adopt the approved resolution."
In dismissing the charges against Ubana, the Ombudsman declared that "complaint failed to substantiate his accusation on a clear and convincing evidence to warrant the indictment of respondent."