Ombudsman junks two cases vs Leonardia, 23 CH officials

BACOLOD CITY , Philippines   â€”The Office of the Ombudsman has dismissed two cases, criminal and administrative, against Bacolod Rep. Evelio Leonardia and 23 other City Hall officials and employees, filed when he was still a mayor.

Dismissed last month were complaints against Leonardia and others filed by Sarah Teresa Esguerra and Othello Ramos, known allies of Mayor Monico Puentevella, according to a press statement of the Leonardia camp sent to The Freeman yesterday.

Also cleared by the Ombudsman were Leonardia’s department heads: City Treasurer Annabelle Badajos, City Accountant Eduardo Ravena, former City Legal Officer Allan Zamora, Secretary to the Mayor Rogelio Balo, Teresita Guadalupe of the Office of  the Building Official (OBO), and 18 other  functionaries of  their offices.

The cases, docketed as Omb-V-C-09-0082-C and Omb-V-A-09-0076-C, stemmed from the temporary retention and use of  the 20 per cent share of the national government in the OBO collections to pay for honoraria of certain city officials and employees who were assisting the understaffed OBO Office.

The Ombudsman, in dismissing the cases said, “(The) records are bereft of any evidence showing that respondents had acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence causing undue injury or unwarranted benefits under the prevailing circumstances.”

The resolution was penned by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer Marie Fe Frances Seville-Ang and approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales. “Premises considered, let the (criminal) case be, as it is hereby, dismissed,” its resolution added.

In the administrative case, the complainants claimed that the respondents committed technical malversation of the 20 percent share of  the OBO funds by using it in paying for the honoraria of some city officials and employees without legal basis.

Leonardia and his co-accused countered however that the OBO was authorized to “retain not more than 20 per cent of the income/collection derived from permit fees and other charges for the operating expenses of his office.”

The Ombudsman ruled then that the “complainants failed, ... to allege the amount or quantify the injury sustained by them by virtue of the respondents’ alleged illegal act as well as any showing that the same is unwarranted so as to qualify as undue injury.”

“Weight is also given to the fact that the respondents utilized the 20 percent share as honorarium and operating expenses of the OBO, considering that their quasi-judicial regulatory office is understaffed,” the Ombudsman added. (FREEMAN)