spot_img
28 C
Philippines
Thursday, March 28, 2024

Court clears former Makati mayor of liability in P2.2-billion building fraud

- Advertisement -

THE Court of Appeals has ruled that former Makati City mayor Jejomar Erwin Binay Jr., cannot be held administratively liable over the alleged fraudulent construction of the P2.28-billion Makati City Hall Parking Building II following his reelection in 2013.

In a 159-page decision, the CA’s Tenth Division through Associate Justice Edwin Sorongon, nullified the joint decision issued by the Office of the Ombudsman on Sept. 7, 2015 which found Binay along with 19 other city officials guilty of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct for the irregularities committed for alleged overpricing in the procurement of the architectural design and engineering services and construction of Phases I to V of the Makati City Hall Parking Building.

The anti-graft body also ordered the dismissal of Binay and his co-accused from service.

In ruling against the Ombudsman, the appellate court said the anti-graft body committed an error in ordering Binay’s dismissal since the condonation doctrine should have been applied in his case, which states that an erring official is considered to have already been forgiven for acts in his past term once he is reelected.

While the SC abandoned the condonation doctrine on the premise that it has no legal bases under the 1987 Constitution together with the other pertinent provisions of law in a ruling issued on Nov. 10, 2015 in the case of Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division) and Binay Jr., the appellate court noted that the Court also ruled that the abandonment should be prospective in application.

- Advertisement -

The CA held that the alleged irregularities in Phase III to V of the MCHPB, which were the bases of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct filed against Binay before the Ombudsman, transpired before Binay was elected in 2013.

“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 appellate court ruled.

“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,” the CA said.

The appellate court did not give credence to the argument of the Ombudsman that Binay cannot use the condonation doctrine for his defense because he signed and approved undated disbursement vouchers  on July 24, 2013 amounting to P429,011 and another disbursement voucher dated July 3, 2013.

The Ombudsman said acts were done after his reelection in May 2013 and during his second term, thus, the condonation doctrine has no basis.

However, the appellate court said that while the said vouchers were signed after Binay was reelected, it is fact that the said DVs were related to the services pursuant to contracts which were already entered during his prior term.

“Indubitably, this Court cannot sustain the Ombudsman with respect to Binay Jr. without utterly disregarding the foregoing pronouncements of the Supreme Court,” the CA said.

“Given the factual circumstances herein and the prevailing jurisprudence, this Court holds that the undisputed and subsequent reelection of Binay Jr. in the year 2013 is a condonation of his administrative liabilities,” the appellate court ruled.

The younger Binay had accused political enemies of his family for the filing of the complaint against him in an effort to destroy the bid of his father, former Vice President Jejomar Binay, for the presidency in 2016.

He argued that he cannot be held accountable for the alleged anomaly since three of the seven construction phases of the MSHSB were done when he was not yet the city mayor.

He said his liability in the subsequent construction phases, if there is any, was expunged by his reelection in 2013 under the “Aguinaldo Doctrine” or the condonation doctrine.

The CA also modified the Ombudsman’s ruling with regard with Binay’s co-respondents.

For respondents Makati City Marjorie de Veyra and City accountant Cecilio Lim III, the CA granted their petition for the dismissal of the administrative complaints filed against them in connection with the MCHPB.

Instead of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct, the CA found respondents Emerito Magat, Nelia Barlis Leonila Querijero and Raydes Pestano, all city government officials  guilty of simple misconduct, thus, warranting only their suspension from the service for six months instead of dismissal.

The CA also granted the petitions of respondents, Eleno Mendoza Jr., and Virgina Hernandez to dismiss the administrative complaints against them.

The appellate court ordered their reinstatement to their former position and the payment of their salaries and other benefits that they did not receive by reason of their dismissal.

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 Arnel Cadangan, CPMO chief  Line dela Pena, City Legal Officer Giovanni Condes, Technical Working Group officer Rodel Nayve, General Services Department staff Norma Flores, Bids and Awards Committee member Ulysses Orienza, CPMO staff Connie Consulta, BAC secretariat Manolito Uyaco and BAC member Gerardo San Gabriel.

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles