In an order released yesterday, Datumanong said the relieved personnel, who are all based at the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)’s central office in Manila, were found "to have either benefited from a reimbursement scheme or failed to perform their duty in preventing such irregularity."
"Let this be a warning to all officials and employees that I will not hesitate to fire people in effecting the program of good governance at the DPWH," Datumanong said in a statement.
Ordered relieved were three of five members of a fact-finding committee: director Oscar Abundo of legal services, director Abraham Divina of the equipment bureau and director Emily Taquintic of the accounting division.
Also relieved under Department Order 169 was motorpool chief Maximo Borje Jr., who had received some P50 million in reimbursement checks for 7,000 repair jobs on some 600 department vehicles last year.
Others officers implicated were either direct payees of checks or signatories of padded vouchers.
The DPWH chief has ordered those relieved "to clear themselves from all property and money accountabilities and to ensure a smooth transition."
The scam was ordered investigated in January after it was discovered that several vehicles were being repaired too often and at costs exceeding the actual value of the vehicles.
Based on the initial reports of the investigation, one old model car was repaired last year at a cost of P900,000 – a price equivalent to that of a brand new car.
DPWH sources said for last year alone, as much as P150 million was involved in the vehicle repair scam.
Major categories of violations included the following:
• Ghost repairs, where there were no actual repairs undertaken but reimbursements were claimed.
• Improper fund use, where amounts used exceeded annual ceilings for appropriate funds.
• Improper emergency repairs, where repairs were undertaken but that the emergency certified did not exist, such as purchase of seat covers and car cigarette lighters.
Datumanong had vowed to push to the hilt the purge of the agency and ensure that perpetrators are criminally prosecuted.
Although Datumanong conceded that some officials may have failed to detect attempts to cheat simply because of the sheer volume of documents needing their signature, he clarified that negligence of duty could be considered a criminal offense.
He stressed that those in-charge should have at least detected the anomalous procedures and took steps to prevent them.