Ombudsman erred in dismissing Junjun Binay, CA says
The Court of Appeals ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman erred in ordering the dismissal of former Makati City Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr. over the construction of the Makati City Hall parking building worth P2.28-billion.
In a 159-page ruling, Associate Justice Edwin Sorongon dismissed the administrative case against Binay based on the so-called “condonation doctrine.”
This was laid down in the Aguinaldo v. Santos case where the Supreme Court ruled that “a public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term since his re-election to office operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him thereof.”
The Supreme Court struck down this doctrine in 2015 but the CA said it is still applicable in Binay’s case.
“Verily, based on the foregoing circumstances and in line with the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Carpio-Morales, the 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 CA said.
“Considering that the present case was instituted prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Carpio-Morales, the condonation doctrine may still be applied,” it added.
The appeals court explained that the alleged irregularities that Binay allegedly committed happened before he was elected in 2013.
In 2015, the Ombudsman, in its 103-page joint decision in 2015, had dismissed Binay and 20 others because “flagrant anomalies were found to have been committed by Binay, Jr. and the other respondents in the design and construction of the building consisting of six phases.”
The Ombudsman argued that the condonation doctrine could not be applied because the alleged anomalies were committed after his reelection in May 2013, during his second term.
The CA contracted this by saying that the disbursement vouchers contested in the case were signed by Binay before he was elected.
“Indubitably, this Court cannot sustain the Ombudsman with respect to Binay, Jr. without utterly disregarding the foregoing pronouncements of the Supreme Court,” the appeals court said.
“Given the factual circumstances herein and the prevailing jurisprudence, this Court holds that the undisputed and subsequent re-election of Binay, Jr. in the year 2013 is a condonation of his administrative liabilities,” it added.
Aside from Binay, the appeals court also ordered the dismissal of administrative cases against Binay’s four other co-accused: Eleno M. Mendoza and Virginia S. Hernandez for lack of merit, and Marjorie A. De Veyra and Cecilio P. Lim III for lack of jurisdiction.
Likewise, the CA found respondents Emerito Magat, Nelia Barlis , Leonila Querijero and Raydes Pestano, all city government officials, guilty of simple misconduct instead of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct.
This means that these respondents will only be suspended for six months instead of being dismissed.
The appeals court also ordered their reinstatement to their previous positions and payment of salaries and other benefits that they did not receive because of their dismissal from service.
Meanwhile, the CA sustained the dismissal order issued by the Ombudsman’s on the other respondents namely City Legal Officer Pio Kenneth Dasal, City Budget Officer Lorenza Amores, Civil Engineer of the Central Planning Management Office (CPMO) Arnel Cadangan, CPMO chief Line dela Pena, City Legal Officer Giovanni Condes, Technical Working Group (TWG) officer Rodel Nayve, General Services Department staff Norma Flores, Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) member Ulysses Orienza, CPMO staff Connie Consulta, BAC secretariat Manolito Uyaco and BAC member Gerardo San Gabriel./vvp
