[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’s plea on furniture purchase issue denied’ 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=” color=”]
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
BACOLOD City – The Office of the Ombudsman has denied the motion for reconsiderations of Mayor Evelio Loenardia and other respondents in relation to the P50 million worth of furniture and fixtures purchased for the Bacolod City Government Center in 2008.
In a 23-page order dated May 16, 2017, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales said “this resolves the three separate motions for reconsideration … finding probable cause to charge respondents, as direct participants and participants by indispensable cooperation, with the offense of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act).”
The offense was spawned by their “culpable violation of RA No. 9184 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations to the damage and prejudice of the taxpayers and the city government of Bacolod and to the benefit of Comfac Corp.,” Morales added.
Republic Act No. 9184 is entitled An Act Providing for the Modernization, Standardization and Regulation of the Procurement Activities of the Government and for other Purposes, otherwise known as the Government Procurement Reform Act.
Named respondents in the complaint were Leonardia; Goldwyn Nifras, then chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC); former Budget Officer Luzviminda Treyes; the late City Legal Officer Allan Zamora; BAC member Nelson Sedillo Sr.; BAC secretariat head Melvin Recabar; former City Treasurer Annabelle Badajos; and former members of the Technical Working Group namely, Gliceria Caduhada, Eduardo Ravena, Jaries Encabo, Belly Aguillon and Aladino Agbones.
The case stemmed from the complaint filed by Francisco Puey in 2008, who alleged that the city government gave undue advantage to their favored contractor when it “illegally awarded the project to Comfac Corp.”
Aside from the criminal aspect, the Dec. 2, 2016 joint resolution of the Ombudsman also ordered the dismissal from service of Leonardia and nine incumbent and former city employees and officials for grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty for the alleged anomalous procurement of furniture and fixtures.
Respondents Zamora, who died during the pendency of the cases, and Caduhada, who could not be served with a copy of the order to file a counter-affidavit, are not included in the determination of the liabilities.
Meanwhile, Leonardia remained as mayor following the Court of Appeals 18th Division granting him a writ of preliminary injunction dated March 22 for his administrative case only.
The Ombudsman denied the motion of Leonardia citing that “respondent Leonardia may even be deemed not only a participant by indispensable cooperation but as a direct participant in the procurement activity that violated provisions of RA 9184. No public funds could have been released without hi, having signed the contract.”
For his part, Leonardia said they still have legal remedies available.
There has been no information filed against them yet so technically, this is not yet a case, he added.
“My conscience is very clear. This case does not involve dishonesty at all. What are at question are merely procedures and technicalities,” Leonardia said. “May I emphasize again, that based on records, there was no overprice, all goods were delivered, there was no bad faith, and no conspiracy.”
Leonardia furthermore said their lawyers are ready to handle the situation and “will leave this to the judicial process to take its course.”
City Legal Officer Joselito Bayatan said they still have 60 days and have several remedies available.
They can go to the Supreme Court, or file their second motion for reconsideration, or simply go straight to the Sandiganbayan and raise the issues the Ombudsman may have missed out, he said.
Bayatan said they want the issue to be resolved as soon as possible because they believe in the merits of the case./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
