TABUK CITY, Kalinga – The Office of the Ombudsman denied the motion for reconsideration filed by former Vice Mayor and newly-elected Appas punong barangay Bernardo Glenn M. Daoas and upheld its earlier ruling ordering his suspension for three months after finding him guilty of simple neglect of duty.
In a 5-page order dated May 2, 2023 that was released only on October 24, 2023, the Ombudsman found no compelling reason to reconsider, modify, alter or reverse its decision dated June 29, 2022 that found Daoas guilty of simple misconduct and meted him the suspension of 3 months from office without pay.
The decision claimed contrary to Daoas’ averment, the supposed delay in the transmittal of the ordinances and resolutions caused damage, albeit immeasurable, to the public in general.
The Ombudsman emphasized that the appropriation ordinances were passed by the city council in response to the request for supplemental budget necessary to undertake critical, urgent, and appropriate response aid and measures to curtail and eliminate the threat of COVID-19 and that without a doubt, the vice mayor discharged his task with indifference as he failed to give proper attention to his duty to sign and submit the ordinances forthwith.
As stated in the assailed decision, the Ombudsman stated that Daoas should have been cognizant of the urgency of the appropriation ordinances’ approval considering that the country was in the midst of the pandemic at that time.
It added that the vice mayor cannot rightfully justify the delay under the prefix of conducting a review to ensure the same were passed pursuant to the law and that clearly the council’s swift passage of the appropriation ordinances was undermined by the unreasonable period the said ordinances remained pending in his office.
The decision reiterated that Daoas failed to sufficiently justify why the subject resolutions and ordinances remained pending in his office for almost two months and that it is improper to conveniently negate his possible culpability by the veneer of the safety protocols enforced during the pandemic and that the local government’s ability to respond to the pandemic was hinged on the passage of the supplemental budget is such an important fact which cannot be simply ignored and swept under the rug on the simplistic reliance on the absence of any law setting the period within which he must sign and transmit the said ordinances.
According to the order, Daoas’ motion for reconsideration failed because the arguments are mere rehashes of the averments in his counter-affidavit which have been adequately passed upon on the assailed decision and that he simply failed to put forward rationally persuasive reasons which would warrant a modification much less, a reversal of the said decision.
The Ombudsman directed the concerned offices of the national government to serve the newly-elected Appas punong barangay the order for him to serve the sentence that was meted on him for such offense.
On June 29, 2022, the Ombudsman found substantial evidence for Daoas to be administratively liable for simple neglect of duty and was meted the penalty of suspension from office for a period of three months without pay.
However, the charges for grave misconduct and abuse of authority that were filed against Daoas were dismissed for lack of probable cause.
The decision pointed out that in the event that the penalty of suspension can no longer be enforced due to his separation from the service, the same shall be converted into a fine in the amount equivalent to his salary for three months, payable to the Ombudsman, and may be deductible from his accrued leave credits or any receivables from his office.
The Ombudsman ordered the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government to implement the said decision immediately upon receipt pursuant to existing laws, rules and regulations.
In his motion for reconsideration, Daoas argued that the Ombudsman erred in finding him liable for simple neglect of duty considering that it was not shown that there was inordinate delay in the transmittal of the resolutions and ordinances from his office to Mayor Darwin Estrañero’s office.
He emphasized that there is no rule that prescribes the period within which resolutions and ordinances should be submitted by the Office of the Vice Mayor to the Office of the Mayor.
The vice mayor maintained that as the presiding officer of the city council, he is duty-bound to attest to the due enactment or adoption of an ordinance or resolution to ensure that the same submitted to his office were the ones passed during the sessions of the body, he had to review the minutes of the sessions and the journals.
More importantly, he had to be extra diligent when dealing with appropriation ordinances, thus, the process might take a number of weeks even months.
He explained that the subject resolutions and ordinances were passed in the year 2020 at a time when the operations of the council were disrupted by the various safety protocols enforced during the pandemic and that the disruption in the work of the body further delayed the process required before he may properly attest to the due enactment of an ordinance or resolution.
Daoas asserted that the mayor failed to show any damage suffered by the city government and by the public due to the supposed delay in the transmittal of the resolutions and ordinances.
