by Miriam G. Desacada
Tacloban City–The Ombudsman, finding probable cause, approved the filing in court a criminal complaint against Tanauan (Leyte) Mayor Gina Merilo for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law) for allegedly hiring losing candidates within a year after the May 2022 elections.
A town resident, Mildred Lopez, filed the case at the Ombudsman where investigation and prosecution officer Jose Melandro Garcia Jr resolved to elevate the case to court after finding probable cause that Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 was violated by the mayor.
However, Garcia dismissed Lopez’s other complaint, due to lack of probable cause, that Merilo also violated Section 3 (j) of RA 3019, which means that the mayor is answerable only to one complaint, violation of Section 3 (e) of the same law.
The resolution of Garcia was, after a thorough review, recommended for approval by Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas Dante Vargas, and approved by Ombudsman Samuel Martirez on 30th of September this year for subsequent filing in the proper court.
The complaint stated that Merilo hired, a month after, two of her party mates who lost in the May 2022 elections: she hired her losing vice mayoralty mate Quintin Octa Jr for a job order position of project engineer; she also hired her losing mate for councilor, Reynalda Almaden, for the job order position of mobile nurse.
Complainant said the hiring of Octa and Almaden was prohibited by law, under Section 6 of Article 9 of the Constitution and Section 94 of RA 7160 (Local Government Code), imposing a one-year appointment ban on candidates who lost in the preceding elections.
Although hiring of non-winning candidates to government posts is allowed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the hired persons are prohibited from performing functions pertaining to vacant regular Plantilla positions.
Yet the mayor hired Octa even if she knows that the latter “would be performing functions of a municipal administrator, a regular Plantilla position.” Lopez alleged that Octa performed executive functions and not tasks of a project engineer. Besides, Octa is not a licensed engineer but a dentist by profession, she said.
In the case of Almaden, the mayor also hired her to perform functions pertaining to a public health nurse, which is a regular plantilla position. This prompted Lopez to file the complaint against Merilo who she said should be held liable for the crime charged for hiring Octa and Almaden despite their ineligibility to the positions they were appointed to.
Mayor Merilo, in her defense, asserted that “the complaint against her was politically motivated and that complainant (Lopez) was being used by her political enemies to discredit her administration.”
She argued that she hired Octa because he was the “only one qualified and willing to serve as a liaison between the Tanauan LGU and the congressional office of Speaker Romualdez or Tingog Party-list.”
She also insisted that Almaden was hired as a mobile nurse to serve only senior citizens, whom she is familiar with, being the former municipal nurse of the Municipal Health Office.
The mayor further said that, before she hired Octa and Almaden, she consulted human resource management officer Raida Baranda “on the propriety of their engagement as job order employees.” Baranda in turn referred the matter to the DILG and CSC regional director who “opined that it was legally allowed but subject to certain limitations.”
Merilo also sought approval from budget officer Ermel Pilola and municipal accountant Mar Villegas who “found no irregularity in the hiring of Octa and Almaden.”
The mayor argued that she acted in good faith in hiring Octa and Almaden, and that the work contracts of the two were standard contracts for job order employees. In reply to the question why Octa was exempted from the biometrics system that records attendance of workers, the mayor said Octa was supposedly to be hired as a consultant and not a regular employee thus not required to record his attendance in the biometric system.
The Ombudsman then tackled the issue for resolution on whether Merilo violated Section 3’s (e) and (j) of RA 3019 for hiring losing candidates within one year after the immediately preceding May 2022 elections.
Ombudsman then determined that there was probable cause for violation of Section 3 (e) against Merilo because she acted with “manifest partiality” or bias in hiring Octa and Almaden as job order employees, even if their actual work was that of a regular employee. The mayor tried to “circumvent” the law prohibiting the hiring of losing candidates.
Octa was hired as project engineer even if he was a dentist by profession, performing duties and functions inconsistent to that of a project engineer, besides being excused from biometrics attendance like a regular employee. Almaden was hired on a job order basis but she was already past her compulsory retirement age violating CSC resolution because a mobile nurse job is not a consultancy service.
The defense contention that Octa and Almaden already refunded the monetary benefit the got from the LGU during their brief stint as job order employees “does not relieve the mayor of the crime charged,” said the Ombudsman resolution.
Ombudsman declared that, under Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, Merilo caused undue injury to the LGU, or gave unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to the hired persons with manifest partiality and evident bad faith.
Merilo’s defense of good faith is best determined during a court trial and not during preliminary investigation, said the Ombudsman resolution. Further, it said there was no probable cause that Merilo violated Section 3 (j) of RA 3019 because it was not established by the complainant that Octa and Almaden were unqualified to the jobs they were hired, in full knowledge of the accused. —Miriam G. Desacada