Tanjay City Vice Mayor Lawrence Teves has been dismissed from the service over the anomaly in the construction of concrete footpaths in two city barangays.
The Dismissal Order was served by DILG NIR-18 Regional Director Thursday afternoon.
In a Memorandum dated Jan. 20, the DILG Central Office directed Negros Island Regional Director Anthony Nuyda to implement the decision approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on Nov. 25, 2016, dismissing former Tanjay City Mayor and now Vice Mayor Lawrence Teves, and former City Councilors Jose Orlino and Steve Teves.
The Ombudsman found them guilty of Grave Misconduct, and penalized with the penalty of dismissal from the service with the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from public office and bar from taking civil service examination.
They were cleared of the charge of Conduct Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service.
As former City Councilors Orlino and Teves are no longer in government service, the penalty would be in the form of a Fine, equivalent to their one year’s salary in their previous jobs.
The order comes from a case filed by the Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman against the three officials, acting on a complaint filed by Eliseo Joselito Monroy on Oct. 23, 2012.
Monroy said the respondents approved ghost projects amounting to P296,560 for the construction of concrete footsteps in Barangays Sto. Nino and Obogon in Tanjay City.
The FIO conducted a fact-finding investigation and discovered that the projects were not ghost projects but had several anomalies.
For both projects, there was no labor cost in the Program of Works. The projects were also not included in the 92 projects reported by the City for 2011-2012, and were charged to an Expense Account rather than as Capital Outlay.
The FIO also found that for the barangay Obogon project, the footsteps were smaller in dimension compared to that stated in the Program of Works and Plan Details, resulting to a shortage of 1.80 cubic meters or equivalent to 64 pieces of footsteps. Some footsteps were also not included in the count since these were converted to concrete pathways.
The shortage caused undue injury to the government in the amount of P16,648.98.
For barangay Sto. Nino, the FIO found that the footsteps were installed only about two months prior to the ocular inspection conducted on Oct. 16, 2014, when they should have been installed three years earlier.
The Ombudsman noted that the purchase also did not have the imprimatur of the Bids and Awards Committee.
Being the City Mayor that time, Teves was charged as head of the procuring entity, and Councilors Teves and Orlino, as requesting parties of the project.
The three officials claimed protection under the Aguinaldo Doctrine, and said their administrative liability arising from the footsteps project in 2011 were erased by their election in 2013.
Mayor Teves was re-elected City mayor, and SP Member Orlino was elected City Vice Mayor.
Mayor Teves also invoked good faith in approving the requisitions believing that the projects would redound to the benefit of the City’s constituents. He said his only participation was affixing his signature to facilitate the procurement of materials for the implementation of the projects.
The two Councilors also denied any direct involvement in the procurement of materials for the project, saying their participation was only limited to signing the budget.
The Ombudsman denied the respondents’ defense that they are protected by the Aguinaldo Doctrine.
“The said doctrine, however, has been abandoned in the recent case of Morales vs. Court of Appeals…hence, respondents’ respective re-election in 2013 no longer serves as condonation of administrative liability.”
In assailing the Aguinaldo Doctrine, the Ombudsman said it runs counter to the concept of a public office being a public trust. She also said there is no constitutional or statutory basis in our jurisdiction to support such doctrine.
The Ombudsman added that it is contrary to human experience that the electorate would have full knowledge of a public official’s misdeeds when they cast their votes. “Thus, there could be no condemnation of an act that is unknown.”
