Danao casuals ask Ombudsman to suspend mayor and 2 others

CEBU, Philippines - The 250 casual employees assigned at the office of Danao City Vice Mayor Ramon “Nito” Durano III and the members of the City council who earlier filed charges against Mayor Ramon “Boy” Durano and two department heads, are now asking the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas to include the mayor in the case they filed last Friday.

The casual employees filed a complaint against Danao City Human resources manager Galacito Camaongay and Danao City budget officer Teresita Almacen last Friday where they asked the Office of the Visayas Ombudsman to impose the appropriate administrative sanctions against the respondents, recommending the filing of the appropriate criminal sanctions and impose preventive suspension while the case is pending.

The original complaint filed in court included the name of Mayor Durano as main respondent of the case but it was omitted in the case they filed before the anti-graft office and they will file a motion today for the inclusion of the mayor in the said case.

Last week, the concerned employees asked the Danao City Regional Trial Court to cite Mayor Durano for indirect contempt along with Camaongad and Almacen.

The Danao City Regional Trial Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing Mayor Durano from withholding the salaries of 250 casual employees.

But Mayor Durano maintained that he does not want to pay the salaries of the casual employees because he believes that the allocation is “illegal” saying that the city government needs P14 million if they paid the salaries and other benefits of the said casual employees.

The TRO, which stemmed from a mandamus case filed by the casual employees against Mayor Durano, takes effect upon payment of a P50,000-bond and is valid for 20 days. But the continuing refusal of Mayor Durano, Camaongay and Almacen prompted the casual employees to bring the case to the Office of the Visayas Ombudsman.

The employees, represented by lawyer Guiller Ceniza, filed a case of Grave Abuse of Authority, Oppression and Violation of Human Rights and Social Justice, Serious Misconduct, Dereliction of Duty, Unsatisfactory Conduct Prejudice to the Service and in Violation of Republic Act 6715 (Anti-Graft and Practices Act), RA 9481 (Anti-Red Tape Law), the Code of Conduct and Ethical Practices of Government Employees.

The employees filed the complaints against the said officials for their continued refusal to comply, perform and enforce various provisions of City Ordinance number 030012 in relation to their salaries, wages and benefits.

The ordinance was enacted by the Danao City Council on April 30, 2012 and later approved and reviewed by the Provincial Board of Cebu on July 3, 2012 pursuant to resolution number 988-2012.

“The subject ordinance, having been duly approved by the City Council and as well as reviewed and approved by the Provincial Board, the same has the full force and effect of a law, its provisions, especially, the salaries, wages and benefit of ordinary, casual workers, are obligatory and mandatory,” the petition reads.

The employees said their payrolls were submitted to Almacen on July 6, 2012 for processing of the payment of salaries. Despite receipt of these payrolls, Almacen allegedly refused to act on them and deliberately waited until Durano issued a memorandum directing the non-processing of these payrolls,

The employees also claimed Almacen falsified the Advise of Allotment by making it appear that the date of receipt was July 12, 2012 instead of July 6, 2012, reportedly to make it coincide with the date of the issuance of the Durano’s memorandum.

Of the 250 casual employees, 238 of them were issued appointments and plantilla positions for 2012 duly approved not only by the Human Resources Officer of the city, but also by the Civil Service Commission. These plantilla positions and appointments have been duly submitted to Almacen.

“ Respondents have refused to faithfully execute the provisions of an existing and valid ordinance, City Ordinance No. 03-012 and that such refusal has been willful, brazen, malicious and or grossly negligent,” the casual employees said.

“As a result of such refusal of respondents to perform their duties on account of their offices, they withheld payment of salaries, wages and benefits,” the complaint further said.     - THE FREEMAN