Duterte's cousin to face trial for refusing to pay back wages

MANILA, Philippines — The anti-graft court Sandiganbayan has ruled to proceed with the trial of the criminal case against President Duterte's second cousin, Danao City, Cebu Mayor Ramonito Durano III.

In a five-page resolution promulgated on February 20, released to the media on Monday, the court's Fifth Division has denied Durano's motion to hold in abeyance his arraignment and other proceedings of his case for lack of merit.

Filed by the Office of the Ombudsman last month, the case against Durano involves violation of Section 67, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 in relation to Section 121 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

The case stemmed from Durano's alleged refusal to reinstate to their former positions some city hall employees, who he fired in 2013.

The ombudsman said Durano also refused to pay the sacked employees their back wages, leave credits and other benefits, despite two resolutions from the Civil Service Commission dated Aug. 14, 2014 and Oct. 28, 2014, ordering their compensation and reinstatement.

The ombudsman said Durano's defiance or negligence had caused prejudice to the employees, especially as the CSC orders were already considered"final and executory"

Durano's motion

In his motion filed on January 29, Durano prayed the court to suspend the criminal proceedings citing his pending petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the ombudsman's resolution finding probable cause to file the case.

Durano said there is also a standing writ of preliminary injunction from the Court of Appeals prohibiting the ombudsman to implement the suspension order earlier issued against him for the administrative aspect of the case.

The ombudsman, in its decision dated June 22, 2016, had found Durano guilty of administrative offense of simple neglect of duty still in connection with his alleged failure to reinstate the city hall employees and ordered his suspension for three months.

Durano had already served his suspension in March 2017 before the CA issued a writ in June of that year to halt the implementation of the ombudsman's order.

Trial to go on

In its resolution, the Fifth Division said the trial of Durano's criminal case must proceed as there is no order from the high tribunal to do otherwise.

"While this Court is cognizant of the accused's entitlement to those remedies, it does not justify deferment of this Court's action to proceed with trial of the criminal case, there being no TRO (temporary restraining order) issued by the Supreme Court,"the ruling penned by Associate Justice Maryann Corpus-Mañalac read.

Associate Justice Rafael Lagos and Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega concurred with the ruling.

The court cited Section 7 Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which states that a petition for certiorari"shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction has been issued"

The Fifth Division also sided with the argument of the ombudsman's prosecution panel that suspending the proceedings will run contrary to the SC's administrative memorandum 15-06-10 or the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases.

"Necessarily, thus, the intended deferment of the proceedings, if granted, will run counter...to the general prohibition on postponements under AM 15-06-10-SC designed to expeditiously disposed of criminal cases" the Fifth Division said.

The court set Durano's arraignment on March 2, to be immediately followed on the same date, with the pre-trial conference, during which, the defense and the prosecution are expected to submit their respective list of evidence and witnesses for the trial proper.