Garcia seeks TRO on suspension order

Bataan Gov. Enrique “Tet” Garcia and three other provincial officials who were earlier slapped with a preventive suspension of six months by the Office of the Ombudsman, yesterday filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court and asked that the appellate court issues a temporary restraining order on the Ombudsman’s order.

In their 29-page petition, Garcia and the other three officials, Provincial Legal Officer Aurelio Angeles Jr.; Provincial Treasurer Emerlinda Talento; and Balanga City Administrator Rodolfo de Mesa asked the CA to issue a temporary restraining order on the Ombudsman and prevent it from enforcing its Oct. 28, 2008 order placing them under preventive suspension for a maximum period of six months without pay.

According to the petitioners, the Ombudsman committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the suspension order.

In their petition, Garcia and the other officials said the Ombudsman’s suspension order was politically motivated.

“To the great majority of the people of Bataan, however, the words, “political vendetta” were readily seen written all over the suspension order,” they said.

The Ombudsman issued the suspension order on Garcia and the other provincial executives for their alleged involvement on the alleged anomalous sale of a private property three years ago.

In a 16-page order, Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro ordered the suspension of Garcia and the three other executives pending their trial on charges of plunder, falsification of public documents, and malversation of public funds in the Sandiganbayan.

Casimiro also ordered the Department of the Interior and Local Government to immediately implement the suspension.

Records show that on Feb. 17, 2004, the Bataan Provincial Government caused the tax delinquency sale of all the immovable properties of Sunrise Paper Products Industries, consisting of a paper plant and two parcels of land where the plant is located at Barangay Doña, Orani, Bataan.

During the said public auction, there being no bidder, the province acquired all the properties for the amount of tax delinquencies in accordance with RA 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991.

On March 5, 2005, after the lapse of more than one year redemption period, and with no interested party to redeem the said properties, the Bataan Provincial Government moved for the consolidation of its titles over the properties.

On April 21, 2005, Sunrise assailed the validity of the tax auction of its properties before the Bataan Regional Trial Court Branch 3. Two other creditors of Sunrise also filed their interventions in the said civil case.

Sunrise and the Bataan Provincial Government later settled their claims amicably. The two parties later moved for the dismissal of the case. However, the RTC proceeded to hear the interventions of Sunrise’s creditors and rendered a decision on June 15, 2007.

Garcia, Talento and the Bataan Provincial Government then questioned the RTC’s decision before the Supreme Court arguing that the RTC has no jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court then issued a status quo order on the case.

On Jan. 22, Josechito Gonzaga, Ruel Masino and Alfredo Santos, former workers of Sunrise, filed graft charges against Garcia and the other executives before the Ombudsman. The complaint was based on the RTC’s decision.

Garcia and the other Bataan executives then filed before the Ombudsman a petition to suspend proceedings saying that the decision rendered by the RTC is pending review by the Supreme Court.

Garcia in his petition with the CA said that the Ombudsman, instead of acting on the petition to suspend proceedings, issued the order placing him and the other executives under preventive suspension.

According to Garcia, Casimiro and DILG Secretary Ronaldo Puno committed grave abuse of discretion by placing him under preventive suspension for acts committed between the years 2004 and 2006 notwithstanding the pronouncement of the Supreme Court that his reelection “operates as a condonation of his previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him from office and “extinguishes any administrative liability incurred by him during his previous term of office.”