THE COURT of Appeals’ (CA) Tenth Division has cleared former Makati City mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” S. Binay, Jr. and four other city officials of administrative charges over the alleged anomalous construction of the P2.28-billion Makati City Hall Parking Building II (MCHPB).
The 159-page joint decision dated May 3 and penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon modified the Office of the Ombudsman’s joint decisions dated Sept. 7, 2015, and Jan. 18, 2016, which dismissed Mr. Binay and 20 other Makati City officials for being “guilty of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct for the irregularities committed in connection with the procurement of the Architectural Design and Engineering Services and Construction of (the MCHPB),” in violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act.
The CA pointed out that Mr. Binay is covered by the Condonation Doctrine, which stated: “the court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office.”
Although the decision noted that the Supreme Court (SC) “abandoned the condonation doctrine on the basic premise that it is devoid of legal bases under the 1987 Constitution,” it still ruled that “(t)he abandonment of the condonation doctrine should not be given any retroactive effect as to prejudice Binay, Jr. for the acts he allegedly committed when said doctrine was still in effect and duly recognized,” the decision stated.
The Ombudsman had earlier ruled that “Binay, Jr. should not be allowed to use the condonation doctrine as a defense because he signed and approved an undated DV (Disbursement Voucher) on July 24, 2013 covering payment to (designing firm, MANA) in the net amount of P429,011.48, and another DV dated July 3, 2013 payable to (construction firm, Hilmarc’s).”
According to the CA, “the condonation doctrine still applies to his (Mr. Binay) case notwithstanding the approval of the aforementioned DVs as these pertained to payment of services contracted during his prior term.”
Thus, the administrative charges against him were dismissed “for being moot and academic on the basis of the condonation doctrine,” the decision read.
Meanwhile, the administrative charges against city administrator and Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) chairperson Marjorie A. De Vera and city accountant Cecilio P. Lim III were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Acting city accountant Elano M. Mendoza, Jr. and Central Planning Management Office (CPMO) chief Virginia S. Hernandez were cleared of administrative charges for lack of merit, with the CA directing them to be “reinstated to their former positions and paid their salaries and such other emoluments that they did not receive by reason of their dismissal from service.”
The modified ruling on city treasurer Nelia A. Barlis, city accountant Leonila G. Querijero, acting city accountant Raydes B. Pestaño, and Emerito C. Magat of the CPMO rendered them guilty of simple misconduct instead and directed their reinstatement after “appearing that (they have) already served (their penalties.)”
“The Court makes clear that when an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not punishment of that officer or employee, but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public’s faith and confidence in the government,” the decision concluded.
The CA maintained the dismissal ruling for respondents Pio Kenneth I. Dasal, Lorenza P. Amores, Mario V. Badillo, Arnel L. Cadangan, Line M. Dela Peña, Giovanni I. Condes, Rodel R. Nayve, Norman D. Flores, Ulysses E. Orienza, Connie N. Consulta, Manolito N. Uyaco, and Gerardo K. San Gabriel. — Dane Angelo M. Enerio

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR