Former mayor to bring case to CA: Ombudsman junks Cortes’ appeal

In its 11-page decision, the Ombudsman said its August 12, 2024 decision finding Cortes guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service would stand.
Office of the Ombudsman Philippines / Facebook page

CEBU, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman has denied the motion for reconsideration that dismissed mayor Jonas Cortes of Mandaue City filed in relation to the irregular designation of Camilo Basaca, Jr., the city’s former City Social Welfare Services Office (CSWSO) head.

In its 11-page decision, the Ombudsman said its August 12, 2024 decision finding Cortes guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service would stand.

Cortes was ordered suspended for a year without pay effective Aug. 21, 2024, which he found too harsh.

In his motion on the said decision, Cortes cited, among others, that he was not given a copy of the complainants' position paper. He also cited that the original complaint was filed before the Ombudsman-Visayas, which should have been the one to resolve it.

Moreover, he said that it should have been the Civil Service Commission who determines whether he violated the Rules on Appointment.

Cortes also said that his act of designating Basaca as officer-in-charge (OIC) is presumed to be done in accordance with the law, and is within the lawful exercise of his powers.

“The presumption of regularity in the performance of official acts is not an iron-clad rule that must be applied at all times. The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence or irregularity or failure to perform a duty,” the Ombudsman, however, said.

Cortes also said that Basaca possessed the eligibility and qualifications required by law to be designated as OIC-CSWSO of Mandaue City.

The Ombudsman, though, said that assuming that Basaca met all the qualification requirements provided under Section 483 (a) of Republic Act 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), his designation as OIC-CSWSO is still in violation of Section 13 (c) of Rule IV of the 2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions, which mandates that employees placed in designated career positions should hold permanent appointments.

When Basaca was designated as OIC-CSWSO on July 4, 2022, he held the position of Executive Assistant II, which is coterminous appointment with the Office of the City Mayor.

Basaca was only appointed as Community Affairs Officer IV under a permanent status on January 3, 2023.

“Again, at the risk of being repetitive, the act of respondent-movant in designating respondent Basaca as OIC-CSWO, despite the latter's failure to meet the qualification requirements and non-compliance with the provisions of the pertinent Civil Service Rules and Regulations shows that there is a clear intent to violate the law and flagrant disregard of established rule,” stated the Sept. 30, 2024 order signed by Ombudsman Samuel Martires on Oct. 7.

“The Office's leniency in imposing the penalty of suspension instead of dismissal from the service despite respondent-movant's liability for grave misconduct should not be taken as an admission that the charges against him have no basis," it added.

As to the contention that since the original complaint was filed before the Ombudsman-Visayas, it should have been the one to resolve the matter and not the Office of the Ombudsman -Central Office, the Ombudsman it has the powers, functions and duties to delegate to its deputies or its investigators or representatives such authority or duty, “as shall ensure the effective exercise or performance of the powers, functions, and duties herein or hereinafter provided.”

The Ombudsman said it is therefore clear that what the deputy Ombudsman possesses are delegated powers that can be withdrawn by the Ombudsman.

“The investigation of complaints may be assigned to the regional, or sectoral deputy concerned, or to a special investigator who shall proceed in accordance with the rules or special instructions or directives of the Office of the Ombudsman,” the Office of the Ombudsman said.

“Pending investigations that the deputy or investigator may issue orders and provisional remedies about, what are immediately executory are subject to review by the Ombudsman”, it further said.

In his motion, Cortes also argued that he did not receive a timely copy of the complainants’ position paper and maintained that the case should have been resolved by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) instead of the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman, though, said that the Office of the Mayor received a copy of the position paper on June 21, which allowed for Cortes sufficient time for review.

As to the jurisdiction and venue of actions, the Ombudsman cited that the “Civil Service Commission (CSC) shall hear and decide administrative cases or matters instituted by or brought before it directly or on appeal, including contested appointments, and review decisions and actions of its offices and other government agencies.”

The CSC would also take cognizance of cases such as complaints against officials who are not presidential appointees or elective officials.

“Based on the foregoing, that upon its evaluation of the complaint against presidential appointees and elective officials involving human resource actions, the Office of the Ombudsman may take cognizance over the administrative aspect of the complaint. The jurisdiction of the Office over elective officials can also be found under Section 216 of RA 6770,” the Office of the Ombudsman further said.

“Hence, respondent-movant's argument that it is the CSC which has jurisdiction over the complaint against him has no basis,” it added.

Thus, the Ombudsman said it found no merit to warrant the reversal of its previous decision, maintaining that Cortes’ appointment of Basaca showed “a clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule.”

Sought for comment on the denial of his motion for reconsideration, Cortes said they would bring the matter to the Appellate Courts.

“We are not satisfied with this as we believe ombudsman decisions should generally have some permanency. Hence, we are appealing the case to the Court of Appeals,” he said.

He cited as a similar case (Coyoca vs Gabriel Romualdez Quisumbing) wherein the the then Mandaue City mayor appointed an OIC-CSWS head “a person who is not eligible.”

“The ombudsman decided to dismiss the case and absolve mayor Luigi of the charges,” Corte said.

“Now in our case involving the designation of Mr. Basaca, the Ombudsman is saying that they can always re-evaluate previous findings, implying that the case against mayor Quisumbing was erroneously decided upon,” he said.— (FREEMAN)

Show comments