The Court of Appeals has modified the penalty of one-year suspension without pay imposed on Governor Joseph Cua in 2019 for alleged gross neglect of duty over the use of Capitol property by then contractor and Bato Mayor Eulogio Rodriguez.
In granting Cua’s appeal on the Ombudsman’s April 2019 decision, the CA’s Ninth Division held that the governor is liable only for simple neglect of duty, for which he is metered with the penalty of suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day.
It may be recalled that a few months before the 2019 local elections, one Rey Mendez filed a complaint against Cua and Rodriguez for abuse of authority, grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The complainant alleged that the site of the former JMA Theatre along the national road in Sta. Elena, Virac, was used by E.R. Construction owned by the mayor as a bunkhouse for employees, garage for construction equipment and storage of construction materials while working on a DPWH drainage project.
He claimed that Cua and Rodriguez conspired to utilize the property without any authority from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
On Jan. 8, 2019, a special panel of Ombudsman prosecutors issued an order preventively suspending Gov. Cua for six (6) months, and, on April 22 that same year, just days before the local elections, the Ombudsman found him guilty of gross neglect of duty and suspended him from office for one year without pay.
Despite winning the gubernatorial race against then Congressman Cesar Sarmiento by a landslide, the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) prevented Cua from assuming office for his second straight term.
The order suspending the reelected governor beyond the June 30, 2019 assumption of office was issued despite the provision in the Local Government Code, contained in Section 66 (b), stating that the “penalty of suspension shall not exceed the unexpired term of the respondent or a period of six months for every administrative offense.
As Cua was found guilty of only one administrative offense, his suspension should have lasted only until the end of his term on June 30, 2019, or a period of less than six months including his preventive suspension.
In his petition before the CA, the governor claimed that the Ombudsman gravely erred in finding that there was inaction on his part on the alleged use of the property, that he tacitly authorized ER Construction to use it, and that the company used the property despite lack of evidence thereof.
He likewise alleged that the anti-graft body did not consider his good faith and violated his right to due process.
In its decision promulgated May 28, 2024, the Court of Appeals found Cua’s appeal meritorious, ruling that he was not guilty of gross neglect of duty which it said involves consciously avoiding doing one’s work or intentionally shirking his duty.
“(W)hile it is true that the provincial governor, as the chief executive of the provincial government, has the responsibility and duty to ensure that the resources of the government is properly managed and utilized, the Local Government Code specifically entrusts to the General Services Officer the custody and accountability of pieces of property owned by the local government unit,” the Court pointed out.
It said that records show that the governor endorsed the complaint of a Legazpi City resident regarding the contractor’s use of the property to PGSO officer-in-charge Crispin Lopez, who in turn replied to the complainant and asked him to appear before their office for clarification.
“Thus, contrary to the findings of the public respondent, there was no inaction on the part of the petitioner as would be tantamount to a tacit permission by petitioner on the use of the subject property,” the Court emphasized.
In holding the governor liable for simple neglect, it underscored that the fact that Mendez’s complaint involved the same property that was the subject of the earlier letter should have prompted Cua to make a follow-up on the subject property after his referral of the matter to the PGSO.