BREATHING SPACE
by: JAY ICAMEN DEJARESCO
JSayang. Bad timing. ust as the elections are up and coming, the venerable and honorable Valencia mayor Rodolfo “Odol” V. Gonzales, Jr. will be facing criminal charges before the Sandiganbayan for graft and corruption.
This came through a now-irreversible order of the Supreme Court. Together with Gonzales, also facing the same criminal raps are his municipal treasurer Rolando B. Obanana and two private contractors Alex and Dominador Abelido.
The nature of the criminal raps The criminal charges against Gonzales and company, stems from his release of what is called “retention money” (peoples’ money) to a private contractor, even if this was prohibited by the regional trial court, through an order called a writ of preliminary attachment. Under the antigraft and corrupt practices act, the penalty for corruption is only ten years maximum imprisonment, and perpetual disqualification from public office. Procedurally, after the criminal information is filed, a warrant of arrest would likely be issued.
But not to worry. This crime is bailable. Just as we hear that the promising Valencia mayor, is being talked about to be a vice-gubernatorial candidate in next years elections, he now has this impending criminal charge in the graft court, the Sandiganbayan.
But we still hope, that whoever the gubernatorial candidate picking mayor Gonzales as running–mate will be, would overlook the fact that he will be having a vice-gubernatorial partner with a pending criminal case before the Sandiganbayan for graft and corruption. Hopefully, voters would not see mayor Gonzales as “political baggage”, with the pendency of his corruption charge.
The parties to the case What is this criminal case involving Rodolfo “Odol” Gonzales Jr.? The facts of the case can be gathered from the Supreme Court website in this address: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/169338.htm The case (G.R. No. 169338) is entitled New Bian Yek Commercial, Inc. versus Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), Rodolfo V. Gonzales Jr., Rolando B. Obanana (municipal treasurer of Valencia) and Erwin Vergara, the provincial attorney, Alex and Domindor Abelido, the private contractors.
This was decided last January 20, 2009.
A motion for reconsideration was filed, but was denied in March. The facts of the case The writer of the decision, Justice Renato Corona, narrated the facts like a news item. Very simple.
On August 13, 2000, the municipality of Valencia Negros Oriental awarded to Legacy Construction (Legacy), a corporation owned by respondents Alex Abelido and Dominador Abelido, the P14.6-million, 300-day-contract for the improvement of its waterworks system (Valencia project).
In connection with the Valencia project, Legacy, the contractor , through its project engineer, Jaime Lu, bought from petitioner New Bian Yek Commercial, Inc. pipes worth P2.8-million. As payment for the pipes, Lu issued two personal checks to Bian Yek, which bounced or were dishonored. Because Legacy had already received a significant portion of the contract price from the municipality, Bian Yek demanded payment for the pipes (amounting to P1,766,950) on December 11, 2002.
Legacy, however, ignored petitioner’s demand. On April 15, 2002, Bian Yek requested mayor Rodolfo V. Gonzales, Jr., to pay for Legacy’s obligation using the retention money withheld by the municipality for the Valencia project.
Unsure (kuno) of what to do, Gonzales referred the matter to Negros Oriental provincial attorney, respondent Erwin B. Vergara.
On January 29, 2003, Bian Yek filed a complaint for sum of money with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against Legacy, Alex Abelido, Lu and the municipality of Valencia in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, Branch 44. On February 4, 2003, Vergara issued an opinion to Gonzales’ query favoring the release of the retention money by the municipality to Legacy.
Meanwhile, after conducting the requisite hearing, the RTC found that Alex Abelido had left the country. There was a balance of the contract price (amounting to P3 million) which was the only fund Bian Yek could run after to recover Legacy’s liability. Thus, in its February 7, 2003 order, the RTC ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. The court prohibited Gonzales or his agents or representatives from releasing any payment (including the retention money) to Legacy.
But what did Gonzles do? Despite the prohibition by the court, Gonzales adopted Vergara’s recommendation and instructed the municipal treasurer Rolando Obañana, to release the retention money to Legacy on March 12, 2003.
This prompted Bian Yek, on November 19, 2004, to file a criminal complaint against mayor Gonzales, his treasurer Obañana, and the provincial attorney Erwin Vergara, and the contractor in the Office of the Ombudsman. Bian Yek alleged that Gonzales, Vergara and Obañana allegedly violated Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) when they released the retention money to Legacy in spite of the February 11, 2003 writ of preliminary attachment.
It was alleged that they conspired with the Abelidos in depriving Bian Yek of payment for Legacy’s just obligation. Ombudsman dismissed complaint Surprisingly, on March 10, 2005, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint against Gonzales and others because they were acting in good faith in following the opinion of the provincial attorney Vergara. So Bian Yek went to the Supreme Court to question the Ombudsman dismissal.
Ruling of the court The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal by the Ombudsman.
Contrary to the ombudsman’s view, the Supreme Court said there is basis to believe that mayor Gonzales and treasurer Obañana unduly injured Bian Yek when they released the retention money despite a prohibition by the regional trial court. In effect, by releasing the retention money even with the prohibition by the regional trial court, Gonzales and Obañana gave unwarranted benefits to the contractor Legacy and the owner Abelido.
Ombudsman: grave abuse of discretion The ombudsman committed a grave abuse of its discretion in dismissing the complaint of Bian Yek, the Supreme Court ruled.
As a result mayor Rodolfo Gonzales Jr, treasurer Obañana, and the contractors Alex and Dominador Abelido will have to face corruption charges. The provincial attorney was absolved, because he rendered his opinion favoring the release of the retention money, before the prohibition for its release issued by the regional trial court The accused triumvirate —the mayor, the treasurer and the contractors—are entitled to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. In the meantime, Gonzales, as an accused, can still run for public office while the criminal case is pending before the Sandiganbayan. We wish the accused well, and the best of luck, and the best of health. They will need it.
Related Articles
9 users responded in this post
atty jay, point of inquiry.
can the ombudsman be also charged (whatever it is) for deciding wrongfully? their decision was reversed by the SC.
or generally, can a lower court judge be also charged of neglect(or whatever case) for erring in its decision that was reversed by the SC?
we’ve read several decision like this before and i believe the events are happening several times already, i.e. the SC reversing a lower court decision. somehow, the lower courts have erred so many times that there might be a flaw somewhere.
thanks for your opinion on this query
good lucK mayor,mangguwa ning kiha kay duol ng election hadlok perdehon ang kontra.
Rule of thumb: Errors in judgment, even in jurisdiction, while correctible on appeal or certiorari, do not give rise to any liability.
Exceptons to the rule—if there are any at all—should be very very few and far between.
Rationale of the rule: If errors in judgment give rise to liability, the judiciary will run out of judges, or no one anymore will apply to become a judge.
it seems that the reports printed on this issue are lacking.
but first, on my point of inquiry.
as pointed out here, the rationale to the rule of no liability arising on a judge error is that “If errors in judgment give rise to liability, the judiciary will run out of judges, or no one anymore will apply to become a judge”
now, why can’t this rule apply to all other positions in government? are judges that scarce that the law have to protect them even if they commit errors in judgment? how about mayors how erred in their judgment of an issue at hand? how about the ombudsman who dismissed the case before hand?
for always decisions are based on the information at the given moment. and if the information provided was lacking or wrong, then an erroneous decision happens!
so why is it that the mayor is liable and the judge or the ombudsman who ‘erred’ is not liable.
i’ve learned that mayor odol, at the time when the decision was made to pay, was not informed of the motion for reconsideration filed by the complainant. this however has to be proven in the right forum, but believing on what has been said on this issue, why is he and his subordinates only the ones liable?
and how about the provincial attorney, who in the first place should have advised further or rather informed the mayor that there is a subsequent development on the issue at hand, and that his advise is no longer true because of subsequent events?
just wondering as it seems to me that the issue has been so muddled! i hope i am not sub-judice because i am not aware of a case yet that has been filed!
Moral of the story:
Don’t do any business with the government unless the government pays the full costs of whatever goods and services you render or will render to it. In short, SHOW AND HAND ME THE MONEY FIRST, BEFORE WE EVEN TALK.
That is how untrustworthy our government is when it comes to $$$!
mao gyod!
tagajawa ayaw na lang ug laban anang mga politiko sa valencia ug uban pang lungsod! ikaw ray giilad ana nila. patuhoon kang ensakto sila.
tulo ray ilang gusto- kuarta, dugang kuarta ug daghang kuarta!
ensakto si riclamo- dawaton daan ang kuarta.
Kung daghang corrupt sa atong mga local officials naa sab sa atong Judiciary. May na silang pamakongon. Magsabot-sabot ra na sila. Puol kaayong paminawon, basta projects gani hisgotan, dagko kaayong minilyon ang hisgotan pero pila na lang katuig wala gyapon tay asenso. Mga mayor nuan klaro kaayong nangasenso ilang pamilya. wahhhhhhhhhh.
the issue here, i believe is not the government per se. it is the way things are being done in the government that needs to be rectified and simplified.
reading the news above, the sequence of events are quite fast: january 29, 2003, bian yek filed the complaint and prayer for money, feb 4, 2003 (tuesday), the provincial attorney issued an opinion favoring the release, feb 7, 2003(friday), the RTC issued the writ of attachment and on march 12,2003, the funds were released!
aren’t the events happening too fast in government? so this is not a hopeless government after all! but knowing how documents move in government, i now understand why wrong decisions were made. the decision makers are not informed of the sequence of events and therefore, they are bound to commit mistakes!
And because there are so many mayoralty aspirants, they can be replaced? no wonder, some LGU heads would say the job is not worth it!
Tagajawa, you dont need to discuss this issue further. This boils down to politicians dirty way of destroying a good political image of a political opponent who unfortunately is vying for their political post or a hindrance to their family’s political career. Simple as it is, you don’t have to wonder how fast these matters were resolved by our courts, the ombudsman and the Supreme Court..Why? Well, if you remember one foremer Vice-Governor who had the case against him to be decided by the Supreme Court at the eve of the campaign period which disqualifies him to be a candidate for Congressman, when in truth and in fact, the latter’s case has been sitting for 6 years in the Supreme Court without having it resolved while he was at that time a Mayor then a Vice-Governor. Whose hands could it be responsible in making these courts judges move so fast so as to put a candidate into a mess? Dont ask me, tagajawa man ka.. and then also, whose hands was the reason why a case which could have been a strong case against a school President but were dismissed? This man is really a big man in Manila, or even in Negros Oriental, ..this man is so dangerous to remain in power. He has the wits and guts to turn your world upside down if you cross his path…this man has the goons and gold, enough to harrass a simple Juan de la cruz in his territory…
Leave A Reply
Please Note: Comment moderation maybe active so there is no need to resubmit your comments