[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’Bing gets CA injunction against dismissal ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY MAE SINGUAY
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=’custom’ color=”]
Friday, March 24, 2017
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
BACOLOD City – The odds are in Evelio “Bing” Leonardia’s favor.
The Court of Appeals (CA) 18th Division issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the Office of the Ombudsman order dismissing the chief executive for grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty.
Two months ago, the same appellate court division issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the mayor’s dismissal.
The injunction shall “enjoin” the Interior department from serving the dismissal order “until this suit has been adjudicated with finality by the court,” stated the CA resolution promulgated on Wednesday.
“Everything will now be back to normal,” Leonardia said. “My concern is for the people to have no more doubts.”
He thanked those who “supported me through thick and thin” and the appellate court for recognizing the merits of his case.
The Ombudsman’s dismissal order stemmed from the questionable purchase of furniture and fixtures at city hall worth P50 million in 2008.
Nine other city government officials were ordered dismissed: Goldwyn Nifras, Nelson Sedillo Sr., Belly Aguillon, Aladino Agbones, Jaries Ebenizer Encabo, Melvin Recabar, Luzviminda Treyes, Eduardo Ravena, and Annabelle Badajos.
The Cebu City-based CA 18th Division said the Ombudsman and the Department of Interior and Local Government were given time to comment on Leonardia’s petition for review and application for writ of preliminary injunction.
The Interior department did not, leading the appellate court to believe it has “waived its right to file” a comment.
The Ombudsman opposed the application for a writ of preliminary injunction and asked to recall the TRO but “failed to establish” why an injunctive writ should not be issued, according to the court.
“Evidently,” the Ombudsman “based their argument on the immediately executory nature of [its] decisions and orders” and contended that an injunctive writ “would encroach on [its] rule-making powers and render nugatory” some provisions of its Rules of Procedure, the CA said.
But while Ombudsman orders and decisions are “immediately executory and shall not be stayed by the mere filing of an appeal,” a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction “may stay the immediate implementation thereof,” read part of the CA resolution signed by associate justices Germano Francisco Legaspi and Marilyn Lagura-Yap and Executive Justice Gabriel Ingles.
Issuing an injunctive writ to stay the dismissal order “is supported by existing jurisprudence,” the court argued, citing “Governor Garcia Jr. v. Court of Appeals” and “Carpio Morales v. Court of Appeals and Binay Jr.”
“Petitioner’s claim of condonation prior to its abandonment stands,” the court said.
In granting the TRO earlier, the CA said the “abandonment of the condonation doctrine should not have a retroactive effect as to prejudice petitioner for the acts he committed when said doctrine was still recognized. [Leonardia’s] reliance on the defense of condonation prior to its abandonment should be respected.”
“The reckoning point should be the day when the administrative infraction was allegedly committed,” the court added./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
