Ombudsman junks complaints vs Gumaca mayor

File photo of the Office of the Ombudsman. INQUIRER/NIÑO JESUS ORBETA

MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman has dismissed the 2021 complaint filed against Gumaca Mayor Webster Letargo for lack of probable cause and substantial evidence.

It was the members of Gumaca, Quezon Sangguninang Bayan (SB) who filed the complaints against Letargo for violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019, as well as for Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service on May 2021.

The complainants alleged that Letargo issued a memorandum that forbade the release of government officials’ Representation and Transportation Allowances (RATA) and Telephone Expenses-Mobile (TEM).

Letargo was accused of trying to get back at the SB members for disapproving the 2021 annual budget of the municipality.

The Ombudsman, in a joint resolution made public Thursday, however, said there was no probable cause to indict Letargo for violation of RA 3019, as Letarga’s act of withholding the complainants’ RATA and TEM “was not without justifiable reason.”

“The decision to suspend their release was based on the advice of the [Local Finance] Committee and its interpretation that RATA and TEM are not part of ‘salaries and wages’ as defined in Section 323 of RA. No. 7160 and considered essential operating expenses which may not be released while the municipality was operating under a re-enacted budget,” said the Ombudsman in its ruling.

Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code, specifically, Section 323, provides that failure to enact the annual appropriations after 90 days from the beginning of the fiscal year, the budget from the previous year shall be re-enacted. However, only the annual appropriations for salaries and wages and essential operating expenses shall be allowed.

The Ombudsman also added that there was no proof that Letargo purposefully withheld the release of the RATA and TAM for the advantage of his own interest nor to discriminate against the complainants or that they were singled out.

Due to this, there was no substantial evidence to hold Letargo administratively liable for Grave Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

“Based on the foregoing, the charge for Dishonesty has not been clearly established. There was no intent on the part of the respondent to deceive, defraud or conceal the truth as regards the withholding of the RATA and TEM from Complainant,” the Ombudsman said.

“To reiterate, the withholding of the questioned benefits is based on the Committee’s interpretation which was not shown to be tainted with malice but appears to be an honest mistake on its part,” it added.

RELATED STORIES:

Martires admits corruption exists within Office of Ombudsman, laments helplessness

Ombudsman dismisses ARTA officials over telco’s grave misconduct complaint

JPV