Ombudsman suspends 2 Batangas town execs over grave misconduct complaint

The Office of the Ombudsman orders the preventive suspension of two Batangas municipality officials over allegations of grave misconduct. Lobo Municipality Accountant Ethel Magnaye and Treasurer Leandro Canuel were suspended “without pay but not exceeding six months” pending their investigation over the purchase of a P5-million heavy equipment. According to the complainant, the public money was intended for a solar-powered water system. Photo form Office of the Ombudsman Philippines/FACEBOOK

MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman ordered the preventive suspension of two Batangas municipality officials over allegations of grave misconduct.

Lobo Municipality Accountant Ethel Magnaye and Treasurer Leandro Canuel were suspended “without pay but not exceeding six months” pending their investigation over the purchase of a P5-million heavy equipment.

On Dec. 16, a barangay chairman filed a complaint against the two and Lobo Mayor Lota Manalo, accusing them of misappropriating the P5 million for purchasing heavy equipment when the public money was intended for a solar-powered water system.

Manalo was excluded from the suspension order as she was already previously ordered dismissed from service for violation of the Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act of 2018, Grave Misconduct, and Gross Neglect of Duty.

READ: 4 Southern Luzon mayors suspended over negligence, abuse raps

“After a careful evaluation of the complaint and its supporting documents, this Office finds sufficient basis to place respondents under preventive suspension pending investigation of the case,” the Ombudsman order states.

“The acts leveled against respondents constitute grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service,” it also says.

READ: Ombudsman: Dismissal of Escoto as BFAR chief stays

The Ombudsman order further explains that “[i]n case of delay in the disposition of the case due to the fault, negligence or any cause attributable to the respondents, the period of such delay shall not be counted in computing the period of the preventive suspension.”