For ‘gross misconduct, neglect of duty’:Ombudsman orders Ifugao solon dismissed

LAGAWE, Ifugao – The Office of the Ombudsman has found Ifugao Rep. Teodoro Baguilat “guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty and meted the penalty of dismissal together with accessory penalties.”

In the event the penalty of dismissal can no longer be implemented due to retirement, resignation or separation from the service for any reason, the alternative penalty of fine equivalent to one year salary shall be imposed with the same penalties accessory to dismissal, said the order.

It was signed by graft investigation and prosecution officer IV M.A Christina O, Uy and Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales dated Jan. 18, 2013.

Melody Balanza of the congressman’s office said their lawyers were studying their legal moves saying they were awaiting Baguilat’s comment on the matter for media purposes considering he was busy on the campaign trail.   

The case against Baguilat, who is seeking a second term as congressman was filed Sept. 24, 2009 by the then Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ifugao and Vice Gov. Nora Dinamling.

Aside from Dinamling, board members who signed the complaint included Jose Jordan T. Gullitiw, Robert K. Humiwat, Rodolfo T. Dulnuan, Clemente T. Bongtiwon, Simson T. Altuna. Aldrin T. Guingayan, Allan T. Cutiyog and Jomar A. Buvuccan.   

Complainants, in their affidavit alleged that Baguilat, then the provincial governor, violated the Local Government Code (Republic Act 7160) by failing on several occasions to give notice to the SP of his travels abroad from 2007 to 2009.

Baguilat, their affidavit added, also violated RA 7160 for designating Albert G. Indunan as officer-in-charge while he was abroad.                 

           
Decrying all the charges to be politically motivated and tainted with bad faith, Baguilat said in his counter-affidavit whenever he travelled abroad, he would “always verbally notify Dinamling and SP members through his executive assistant Charles Baguilat.”

            

Baguilat also denied designating Indunan as OIC of the province while he was travelling overseas as he “merely authorized him to sign and approve vouchers as well as checks for salaries, wages and TEVs in order not to deprive provincial government employees or delay the release of their salaries and wages and that whenever he traveled abroad or went on official business, he made it a point to designate the vice governor as OIC of the province.

            

Baguilat told the Ombudsman that under Section 46(a) of the Local Government Code, the vice-governor should automatically assume as governor, without need of designation in the event the latter is traveling abroad.

            

“Citing transparency and good governance as his advocacy respondent incorporates a report on his international travels to India, Thailand, USA, Vietnam, Norway, Japan and Italy for complainant to realize that they were undertaken for the benefit the people of Ifugao,” the Ombudsman noted.

            

But complainants maintained that, “contrary to respondent’s claims, its members were not even aware that he had left the country on October 28, 2007, November 11, 2007, and December 10, 2007, and that respondent had likewise not bothered to inform them – members of the SP of his travels when he left the country on August 24, 2008, November 21, 2009, and May 25, 2009.

“In fact, they were unaware that respondent had traveled abroad on October 28, 2007, learning of his departure only on the third day of his absence when they were furnished a copy of Special Order No. 8 designating Dinamling as OIC-Governor covering the period October 30-31, 2007.”

According to SP members, respondent’s former executive assistant Charles Baguilat never informed them or the SP of respondent’s whereabouts, branding his December 18, 2009 affidavit as “self-serving considering that he happens to be respondent’s cousin and owes respondent his appointment to the accounting office where he is now detailed.”

            

Disputing respondent’s assertion that the office disbursement vouchers signed by Dinamling constitute proof of her designation as OIC-governor, the SP members contended Dinamling customarily would sign vouchers pertaining to per diems, and gasoline and other expenses incurred by the SP members in her capacity as vice-governor.

Citing Special Orders 8 and 9 as the only exceptions, the SP members denied that the respondent had always designated the vice-governor as OIC during his trips abroad as evidenced by his act of authorizing his executive assistant on several occasions to sign/approve vouchers and checks for salaries and wages, among others.

“In any case, they assert that it was only in 2007 that respondent designated Dinamling as OIC albeit he later kept all his travels a secret from the SP such that in 2009, they were forced to check with the BID for a record of his travels abroad,” the Ombudsman noted.

            

“On respondent’s claim that Dinamling should have automatically assumed as OIC even without any designation, the SP members counter that this would only have been possible if respondent had properly informed the SP of his travels abroad; and that even Special Order Nos. 05-09 and 06-10, which authorized Indunan to act as signatory to the province’s checks and vouchers, do not indicate respondent’s whereabouts.

“Moreover, they point out that even if respondent did not designate Indunan as OIC-Governor under the aforesaid special orders, such grant of authority as signatory to checks and vouchers clearly violates Section 46(a) of RA 7160 in relation to Section 46(e)9 which makes no distinction between an authorization and a designation; and respondent’s claim that verbal notice to the SP is sufficient cannot conceal his manifest intent to prevent Dinamling from assuming as OIC-Governor.

            

“In resolving whether respondent is guilty of the charges leveled against him, the Office must determine if substantial evidence exists that respondent violated Section 96(c) and 46(a) in relation to 46€ of RA 7160 by failing to comply with his legal obligation to notify the SP of his travels abroad and designating his executive assistant as OIC of the province during his absences. We find merit in the complaint.”

The Ombudsman ruled that the only direct evidence he (Baguilat) adduced in support of his defense was the solitary affidavit of Charles Baguila who attested that in all foreign travels of then Gov. Baguilat when the former was executive assistant, the governor, designated Dinamling as OIC provincial 

Charles Baguilat in his affidavit said he verbally notified Dinamling and the SP of the governor’s foreign travels.

The Ombudsman didn’t find merit in this saying Baguilat also could not invoke disbursement vouchers signed by Dinamling as proof of notice to the SP of his travels.

The Ombudsman noted that respondent didn’t deny or he failed to controvert complainants’ allegations that Dinamling normally signed those documents in her capacity as vice-governor as they involved expenses regularly incurred by the SP or its members.

“A telltale sign that respondent had no intention of informing the SP and/or the vice-governor about his 2008 and 2009 foreign trips, among others, is his act of authorizing under Special Order Nos. 05-09 and 04-1014 his Executive Assistant IV Indunan “to sign/approve vouchers and checks for salaries/TEVs and wages, to include also other mandatory expenses.”

“These authorizations were dated May 21, 2009 and June 1, 2009, respectively, the latter bearing a date when respondent was already in Italy, both of which authorizations did not bear any indication whatsoever of respondent’s whereabouts (whether within the country or abroad), they merely stating that they were being issued “in the interest of the public service and in the absence of the undersigned and provincial administrator who will be attending official functions. The attempt to conceal, confuse or mislead could not have been more obvious.

“Respondent has proffered no valid explanation why he could not have just delegated those responsibilities to Dinamling instead of entrusting the same to his Executive Assistant. Moreover, Section 46(e)€ of RA7160 is clear that, subject only to the exceptions provided under the preceding sections therein, the local chief executive cannot authorize any local official to assume the powers, the duties and functions of his office other than the vice-governor, city or municipal vice-mayor or the highest ranking sangguniang barangay.

Respondent’s reliance on Section 46(c)15 of the same law which grants him the discretion to temporarily designate in writing an OIC where his travels do not exceed three consecutive days is misplaced considering that the provisions applies only when the incumbent local chief executive is traveling within the country

“As earlier mentioned, respondent had admitted being on official business in Italy on May 25 up to June 4, 2009.

Complainant’s position then that Dinamling had been prevented from, and could not automatically assume as OIC governor pursuant to Section 46(a) of RA 7160 due to respondent’s refusal to formally notify the SP, or at the very least, the vice-governor, of his overseas trips convinces.

“The counter-charge against Dinamling for dereliction of duty must thus necessarily fail.”