INABSUWELTO ng Court of Appeals si dating Cavite Governor Erineo ‘Ayong’ Maliksi sa mga kasong administratibo kaugnay sa memorandum of agreement na isinakatuparan sa pagitan nito at ng Light Rail Transit Authority noong 2008.
Sa 26 pahinang desisyon na nilagdaan ni Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, binaligtad ng 5th Division ng CA ang March 10, 2017 decision at September 14, 2017 order ng Office of the Ombudsman, at ibinasura ang reklamo laban sa dating go-bernador para sa Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service.
Ang kaso ay nag-ugat sa memorandum of agreement na may petsang Pebrero 27, 2008 na isinakatuparan ng LRTA, isang gov-ernment-owned-and-controlled corporation na kinatawan ng noo’y Administrator Melquiades A. Robles, at ni petitioner Maliksi, bilang gobernador noon ng lalawigan ng Cavite, para sa ‘identification, acquisition and development’ ng isang relocation site para sa informal settlers na apektado ng LRT-1 South Extension Project na mag-e-extend sa existing facilities ng LRT-1 mula sa terminal nito sa Baclaran hanggang Bacoor, Cavite.
Kinatigan ng CA ang petisyon ni Maliksi na humihiling na baligtarin ang ruling ng Ombudsman. Ibinasura ng CA ang findings ng anti-graft body na may sapat na ebidensiya laban kay Maliksi.
“There was no substantial basis for the Ombudsman to consider petitioners’ acts as ‘deliberate refusal or failure to recognize ap-plicable laws, rules and regulations. While petitioner Erineo S. Maliksi signed the ‘Deed of Absolute Sale’ and approved payment, among others, of tenants’ disturbance compensation, broker’s commission and the related transfer taxes, he did so in good faith. It was only after the assurance from the Provincial Legal Office and Provincial Appraisal Committee that the same were legal, fair and reasonable that petitioners pushed through with the transactions related to the purchase of the subject parcels of land,” ayon sa ruling ng CA.
Napatunayan ng appellate court na nagkamali ang Office of the Ombudsman sa hatol nito na guilty ang dating gobernador sa Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service nang payagan ang pagpapalabas ng public funds para sa pagbabayad ng Tenants’ Disturbance Compensation and Damages, broker’s commission at capital gains tax kaugnay sa pagbili ng lupa para sa relokasyon ng informal settlers na apektado ng LRT-1 South Extension Project.
“In this case, we find the proposed amounts of disturbance compensation of various affected tenants as fair and adequate. Con-sidering that the fair market value of the land now is Php600 per sqm, the tenants’ compensation averaging Php12,112,300.00/ sqm is deemed fair & adequate,” sabi pa ng appellate court.
“Well-settled is the rule that good faith is always presumed. Specifically, a public officer is presumed to have acted in good faith in the performance of his duties. Mistakes committed by a public officer are not actionable absent any clear showing that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith “Bad faith” does not simply connote bad moral judgment or negli-gence. There must be some dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of a sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will.”
Nakasaad pa sa ruling ng appelate court, na kinatigan nina Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at Maria Luisa Quijano-Padilla na, “Verily, the fact that petitioner Erineo S. Maliksi was the head of the procuring entity and the governor of Cavite did not automatically make him the party ultimately liable for the transactions in question. He cannot be held liable simply because he was the final approving authority of said transactions and that the employees/officers who processed or approved the same were under his supervision. Mere signature of petitioner Erineo S. Maliksi on the award of the contract and the contract itself, without anything more, cannot be considered as a presumption of liability. Mere signature does not result to a liability of the official involved without any showing of irregularity on the document’s face such that a detailed examination would be warranted. Liability depends upon the wrong committed and not solely by reason of being the head of a government agency”
“The Court finds that the Ombudsman grossly misappreciated the evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion and warrant reversal of its factual findings,” dagdag pa ng CA.
Comments are closed.