REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON ‘30 FLooR, OwauostnK BLDG, AGHAM ROAD, DMA, Quezon Ciry FROILAN T. GRUEZO, A. Luna St. Brgy. San Francisco, Majayjay, Laguna, OREN Nes PILIPINAS PARA SA PINOY (PPP} IRECEI\ rep. by Atty. Paterno L. Esmaquel, | ae ialtteaciia | 640 Morales Ave., Brgy. Gen. en “Ea fe Paulino Santos, Koronadal City, —S—— Complainants, - versus - OMBE-L-A-12-0332-6 FOR: Grave Misconduct TEOFILO B. GUERA, Municipal Mayor, Office of the Municipal Mayor, Municipal Hall, Majayjay, Laguna, ANA LINDA C. ROSAS, Municipal Vice-Mayor, LAURO C, MENTILLA, Sangguniang Bayan Member, MAURO C. ARAGON, Sangguniang Bayan Member, SUANCHO M. ANDAYA, Sangguniang Bayan Member, ANTONIO 8. ZORNOSA, JR., Sangguniang Bayan Member, MARIO O. MERCOLISA, JR., Sangguniang Bayan Member, JOVANIE ANN G. ESQUILLO, Sangguniang Bayan Member, BERNARDO I. DE VILLA, Sangguniang Bayan Member/ ABC President, All of: Office of the Sangguniang Bayan, Municipal Hall, Majayjay, Laguna, Respondents. DECISION For decision before this Office is the above-captioned administrative case for Grave Misconduct filed against respondents ceaaeor Tacos, cement ay mraz fel : |DECISION OMB-L-A-12-0332-G Gruezo, et. al. vs. Guera, et. al Page 2 of 21 Teofilo B. Guera, Ana Linda C. Rosas, Lauro C. Mentilla, Mauro C. Aragon, Juancho M. Andaya, Antonio S. Zornosa, Jr., Mario O. Mercolisa, Jr., Jovanie Ann G. Esquillo, and Bernardo I. de Villa, all elected public officials of Majayjay, Laguna, for allegedly conspiring and confederating among themselves to cates ito ana authors the execution of three (3) contracts, namely: (1) Contract for the Supply of Bulk Water (Bulk Water Contract) between Israel Builders and Development Corporation (IBDC) and the raunicipality of Majayjay;! (2) Water Supply Contract between the municipalities of Lumban and Majay jay;? and (3) Water Supply Contract between the municipalities of Sta. Cruz and Majayjay; ° which are manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the municipality of Majayjay, Laguna. COMPLAINANTS’ ALLEGATIONS In their Affidavit-Complaint, the complainants alleged that the subject three (3) contracts were entered into by and between respondent Guera on behalf of the municipality of Majayjay, Laguna, as authorized by the other public respondents, and private respondent Gapangada, Jr.’s corporation, IBDC. The contracts were entered into under the pretext of rehabilitating and improving the Majayjay Water System to purportedly deliver better water service to the people of Majayjay GEiReCE ORIEN cenninen ve Gory tseaet L PYeRe ne 1 Annex “A” of the Affidavit-Complaint. 2 Annex “L", supra, ° Annex “M", supra.DECISION OMB-L-A-12-0332-G Gruezo, et. al. vs. Guera, et. al Page 3 of 21 However, the complainants contended that, in reality, the purpose of said contracts, which had a one hundred (100) year term, inclusive of the automatic fifty (50) year extension, was to exploit the abundant water sources of Majayjay in favor of IBDC. The complainants argued that IBDC did not have sufficient financial capacity*, as its required funding for the cost of the bulk water arrangement shall be sourced not only from its own funds but also from its joint venture partners. The complainants also claimed that IBDC had no technical expertises, as shown in its financial statements, its amended Articles of Incorporation (BDC is not a water utility company), and its contractor’s license, which classifies it as a “Small B” contractor as certified by the Philippine Constructors Accreditation Board (PCAB), and hence eligible to do projects only in the ten (10) million to fifteen (15) million range. Moreover, the complainants averred that said contracts provided for a revenue sharing agreement of 90% in favor of IBDC and only 10% for the municipality of Majayjay, clearly showing that they are grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the latter. The complainants enumerated the following grounds to support their claim that the subject contracts were grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the municipality of Majayjay: * Section 5, Article II] of the Contract for the Supply of Bulk Water dated August 1, 2011 (Annex “D” total stockholders’ equity of Php10,720,652.00), “H”, “I”, and “J” of the Affidavit-Complaint. ftice oF THe Omavosnan | tear —DECISION OMB-L-A-12-0332-G Gruezo, et. al. us. Guera, et. al Page 4 of 21 1. The term® of the bulk water contract virtually monopolized the right’ to extract and enjoy the water resources of Majayjay in favor of IBDC, to the great disadvantage and prejudice of the municipality and its inhabitants; 2. The revenue sharing agreement® was unconscionable, especially considering that the public respondents also agreed for an allowable 25% rate of return? in favor of IBDC, despite the 12%!° reasonable rate of return allowed by law for companies engaged in public utility businesses. Furthermore, said 10% revenue share of the municipality was still subject to deduction for other costs and charges;!! 3. The bulk water contract did not provide any specific undertaking for IBDC regarding the amount of capital/investment it would infuse and spend for the completion of the project and the improvement/upgrade of Majayjay’s water system; & © Section 4, Article II of the Contract for the Supply of Bulk Water dated August 1, 2011 (Annex “D" of the Affidavit-Complaint). 7 Sections 6(f) and 7(g}, Article IV of the Contract for the Supply of Bulk Water dated August 1, 2011 (Annex "D” of the Affidavit-Complaint). 8 Section 22, Article XIV of the Contract for the Supply of Bulk Water dated August 1, 2011 (Annex “D" of the Affidavit-Complaint). ° Section 16, paragraph 5, Article XI of the Contract for the Supply of Bulk Water dated August 1, 2011 (Annex “D* of the Affidavit-Complaint). © MERALCO vs. Public Service Commission, 18 SCRA 651; Republic vs. MERALCO, 391 SCRA 700, 709. 4 Section 7(b), Article IV of the Contract for the Supply of Bulk Water dated August 1, 2011 (Annex “D” of the Afficavit-Complaint). eof ye ABS cannes ae CY OF HE ORCA, IBRAEL nsDECISION OMB-L-A-12-0332-G Gruezo, et. al. us. Guera, et. al Page 5 of 21 sii x 4.IBDC did not post the required 12 performance security to guarantee the faithful performance of its obligations under the bulk water contract prior to the signing thereof; 5.The public respondents used the Public-Private Partnership Program (PPPP} of the national government in order to circumvent the strict requirements provided by law!? on bidding and award of infrastructure projects. However, upon verification, it was discovered that the Public-Private Partnership Center of the Philippines (PPP Center) was not involved in the processing of the project, nor was it involved in the preparation of the bid documents, drafting of the bulk water contract, and selection of IBDC as the winning private proponent. The PPP Center never received any copy of the subject bulk water contract or any other related documents;!* 6. The bulk water contract stated that the formal proposal of IBDC was treated as an unsolicited proposal in accordance with the issued guidelines on joint ventures pursuant to Section 8 of Executive Order No. 423 dated April 30, 2005. However, upon closer scrutiny, said contract was entered into pursuant to R.A. No. 771815 as it involved an important and priority project. However, the contract did not comply with the provisions of said 2 Section 39 of R.A. No. 9184 “R.A, No. 6957, as amended by R.A. No. 7718 and R.A. No. 9184, 4M Annex “K” of the Affidavit-Complaint. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN cenniiea TE COPY OF THe ORIGIN ' Build-Operate-Transfer Law.DECISION OMB-L-A-12-0332-G Gruezo, et. al. vs. Guera, et. al Page 6 of 21 law in the execution of.the same, i.e. there was no publication and no approval by the development council or the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), and its term exceeded the maximum period provided under the law; 7. The water supply contracts were entered into with the municipality of Majayjay as the water supplier and the municipalities of Lumban and Sta. Cruz as the buyers. IBDC was not a party to either of the water supply contracts, and thus, did not assume any obligation to the buyers. In other words, the municipality of Majayjay assumed all the obligations and responsibilities of supplying the water requirements under said water supply contracts, including the penalties in case of default or delay and the posting of the performance security. The municipality, in effect, guaranteed IBDC’s performance of its obligation. However, the only profit that the municipality of Majayjay would gain is the 10% revenue share subject to the deductions stipulated under the bulk water contract, while 90% of the proceeds would still go to IBDC; and 8. In the bulk water contract, IBDC was authorized to collect!® the water payments from the bulk water buyers such as the municipalities of Lumban and Sta. Cruz, despite it not being a party to the water supply contracts. '6 Section 9(b), Article V of the Contract for the Supply of Bulk Water dated August 1, 2011 (Annex *D" of the Affidavit-Complaint). “er efiCE OF og ‘gece mz feraet L PAgRE oneDECISION OMB-L-A-12-0332-G Gruezo, et. al. us. Guera, et. al The complainants further averred that respondent members of the Sangguniang Bayan failed and refused to act on the resolution calling for the stoppage of the implementation of the subject contracts. To the complainants, this is a clear demonstration that they tacitly approved the execution and implementation of the same, and that they conspired and confederated with respondents Guera and Gapangada, Jr. in authorizing the execution and implementation of said contracts. In an Order dated July 25, 2012, the respondents were directed to submit their Counter-Affidavits. RESPONDENTS’ ALLEGATION: In his Counter-Affidavit, respondent Guera averred that even before he was elected Mayor of Majayjay, the residents therein had been complaining of the bad condition of the water supply and the resulting illnesses and health problems it causes. The contaminated water supply was confirmed by a bacterial examination.!’ Thus, when he received the unsolicited proposal from IBDC, he referred the same to the Sangguniang Bayan, which favorably" acted upon it. A public hearing!? was conducted and thereafter, IBDC submitted the results of its 7 Annex “B" of respondent Guera’s Counter-Affidavit. ® Annex “C*, supra, © Annex *D", supra. oe farce oF ne cenrieD Tau Com (SRABLL i :DECISION OMB-L-A-12-0332-G Gruezo, et. al. vs, Guera, et. al Page 8 of 21 feasibility study, which he forwarded?® to the Sangguniang Bayan. IBDC then submitted an Amended Unsolicited Proposal for a Contractual Joint Venture Agreement?!, which he once again forwarded”? to the Sangguniang Bayan. The Sangguniang Bayan, after careful study and deliberation, authorized? him to enter into a contract with IBDC, which was then duly ratified.2* Respondent Guera attested that said contracts also underwent various amendments,” after going through the regular process, in order to further strengthen its provisions to the benefit and advantage of the municipality of Majayjay. In addition, respondent Guera refuted the following allegations of the complainants: 1. As to the alleged term of one hundred (100) years - a cursory reading of the contract reveals that the actual term stipulated2> therein was only fifty (50) years, and after said period, the municipality of Majayjay can unilaterally27 declare the termination of said contract and accept full ownership and operation of the project. Moreover, under the amended contract, the automatic 2 Annex 2 Annex ‘I 29 Annex * 2 Annex “I 25 Annexes “ 26 Section 4 of Annex “ 27 Section 29 of Annex “I eV", SW", and “X°, supra, “OFFICE OF THE OMBUOSMAN | cenriea TUE COPY OF THe ORIGIN ‘rag Oe bi FiDECISION OMB-L-A-12-0332-G Gruezo, et. al. us, Guera, et. al. Page 9 of 21 x renewal clause in the term provision was deleted. Instead, it was provided that renewal should be upon mutual agreement under terms and conditions acceptable to both parties; . As to the revenue sharing of 90% for IBDC and 10% for the municipality - various expenses were deducted from the 90% share of IBDC, including those spent for the feasibility study, engineering designs, rehabilitation of the water system, chlorination of the water, laboratory and testing expenses, water meters, equipment, water pipes, restoration of roads, overhead expenses, and the like. All these expenses were shouldered by IBDC without any centavo coming from the municipality’s funds. Likewise, the amended contract provided that the only allowable deduction from the share of Majayjay was the 2% expenditures provided under Section 14,28 Article IX of the bulk water contract, which would be equally shouldered by IBDC. Furthermore, said 10% share is even more than the required share of a local government unit under the Franchise Law on Public Utility, which is only 3%; and 28 Section 14. To ensure the sustainable protection and use of Mt. Banahaw watersheds and surface water sources, IBDC and MAJAYJAY shall work for a collaborative and integrative management action plan/s by spearheading multi-sectoral activities based on identified watershed priority issues. As such, both PARTIES hereby agree to set aside two percent (2%) of the gross revenues generated from bulk water sales to be used for the tree planting and other related activities for the protection and/or preservation of watersheds and surface water sources. In this regard, the two percent (2%) of the gross revenues generated as above stated shall be deposited with the Municipal Treasurer of Majayjay under a “Trust Fund” to be established for the purpose, “OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, on sues Se mgDECISION (OMB-L-A-12-0332-G Gruezo, et. al, vs. Guera, et. al Page 10 of 21 3. As to the supposed violations of R.A. Nos. 7718 and 9184 - said laws do not apply to the bulk water contract since the same is a joint venture agreement and was in consonance with the PPPP. The bulk water contract was an unsolicited proposal and was likewise not classified as a “procurement” since it was not an acquisition of goods, consulting services, or infrastructure project. Respondents Rosas, Mentilla, Aragon, Andaya, Zornosa, Jr., Mercolisa, Jr., Esquillo, and de Villa (respondent Sangguniang Bayan members, for brevity), in their Joint Counter-Affidavit, clarified that according to the complaint, they were being charged for their alleged refusal to issue a Resolution to stop the implementation of the contracts subject of these cases. They argued that the Sangguniang Bayan possesses only local legislative authority and had no jurisdiction to stop the implementation of said contracts because only a court of competent jurisdiction can issue a restraining order or injunction.29 Corollary thereto, respondent Sangguniang Bayan members contended that the subject contracts are all public documents and are entitled to the presumption of regularity and validity.%° They averred that they gave respondent Guera full authority to negotiate and enter into a contract with IBDC in good faith and with the honest belief that 2 Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Court. ® Scction 3(m) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court; Blaquera vs. Alcala, 295 SCRA 366. Frice oF Twe omsuosMaN | cemnPledIHUE COPY ora Onn | ISRAEL | ‘ON PROPERDECISION OMB-L-A-12-0332-0 Gruezo, et. al. vs, Guera, et. al Page 11 of 21 the former, being the Local Chief Executive, gave paramount consideration to the interests, rights, and welfare of the municipality of Majayjay and that all the requisite legalities and procedures were duly complied with by the parties to said contracts. Moreover, respondent Sangguniang Bayan members pointed out that even their colleagues who supposedly called for the passage of a resolution to stop the implementation of the subject contracts had also previously authorized respondent Guera to enter into such agreements and ratified the same. COMPLAINANTS’ REPLY In their Consolidated Reply-Affidavit, the complainants reiterated the allegations in the complaint and added further that the surety bond posted by IBDC was insufficient and was not accompanied by the required *! Certification from the Insurance Commissioner. The complainants also pointed out that at the time of the execution of the addendum and revision of the subject contracts, the respondents already had knowledge of the defects and flaws of the same by reason of the filing of the instant complaint. Therefore, the purported addendum and revision were only an afterthought on the part of the respondents in order to avoid or escape liability incurred ‘by the execution and implementation of the water contracts. 51 As required under GPPB Non Policy Matter No. 017-2012, Annex “D” of the Consolidated Reply- Affidavit, nce ue sin CERTINED TAUE COPY ‘Ra ee eeDECISION Page 12 of 21 RESPONDENTS’ REJOINDER In his Rejoinder, respondent Guera reiterated his previous averments and added that the complaint was politically-motivated. In an Order dated October 30, 2012, the parties were directed to submit their verified Position Papers. PARTIES’ POSITION PAPERS Both parties basically reiterated the averments in their pleadings in their respective position papers. A perusal of the record shows that the present case may now be resolved on the basis of the available documents. ISSUE Can herein respondents be held administratively liable for Grave Misconduct as charged? e enn TUE OOP oT OOM, pecs seDECISION (OMB-L-A-12-0332-G Gruezo, et. al. vs. Guera, et. al Page 13 of 21 DISCUSSION Bulk Water Contract: A reading of the Bulk Water Contract® shows that IBDC was accorded unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference under its provisions. Despite its lack of financial capacity and technical expertise regarding the construction, rehabilitation, operation, and/or maintenance of water work systems/facilities, the subject bulk water contract was still awarded to IBDC. Moreover, the requirements of the law regarding awarding of government contracts were circumvented or implicitly waived in order to award the bulk water contract to IBDC. Furthermore, the provisions of said contract do not provide for any penalty or liability to be incurred by IBDC in case of default, delay, or failure on its part to fulfill its obligations therein. Also, the revenue sharing agreement therein is grossly in favor of IBDC, with only a small portion going to the municipality of Majayjay. Even if the initial expenses incurred prior to the operation of the water work system are deducted from said share of IBDC, such deduction is infinitesimal when compared to the revenue *? “Contract for the Supply of Bulk Water” dated August 1, 2011 executed between respondent Guera in behalf of Majayjay, and respondent Gapangada, Jr. in behalf of IBDC. ice or a RIAN cerrBed mOEEaPT oF He ONL (RAELL ‘onsDECISION (OMB-L-A-12-0332-G Gruezo, et. al. vs. Guera, et. al Page 14 of 21 and other benefits that would be generated by it for the entire duration of the contract. The records of the case clearly demonstrate that the respondents wrongfully and arbitrarily used or took advantage of their positions to extend unwarranted benefits, preference, and advantage to IBDC. In spite of the obvious defects and flaws attendant in the provisions of the Bulk Water Contract and the process leading to the award of the same, the respondents still favoured IBDC to the damage and prejudice of the municipality of Majayjay. The respondents failed to exercise the necessary prudence and caution to ensure that the terms of said contract were fair to the municipality. Their manifest partiality and evident bad faith were unmistakably shown when they circumvented the procedures and safeguards provided for by the law regarding the award of government contracts, such as the bidding process and the requirements on the qualifications of a contractor for a project of such magnitude. These acts of the respondents demonstrate their willful intent to violate the applicable laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to government contracts. “Gftice ce Tie owavoguan cenrinea mus COPY oF Tre Onto ISRAEL LI (a oneDECISION OMB-L-A-12-0332-G Gruezo, et. al. vs. Guera, et. al Page 15 of 21 Water Supply Contracts: Corollary thereto, after a careful review of the two water supply contracts,%* it is apparent from the provisions that the municipality of Majayjay, as the water supplier, would be responsible for delivering a specific volume of potable water to the water buyers, ie. the municipalities of Lumben and Sta. Cruz, together with all the other obligations stated therein. Moreover, the municipality of Majayjay would be answerable and liable for damages and penalties in case of default or delay in the fulfilment of its obligations as provided in the water supply contracts. In effect, the municipality of Majayjay would be assuming obligations and responsibilities the fulfilment of which it has no control over, since it is actually IBDC that would be operating, managing, and maintaining the infrastructure, facilities, machineries, and equipment for bulk water supply and the water supply distribution system of Majayjay, as provided for in the bulk water contract. Since IBDC is not a party to the water supply contracts, it is free from any liability that may arise therefrom. 59 “Water Supply Contract” dated December 30, 2011 executed between respondent Guera in behalf of Majayjay and Mayor Wilfredo O. Paraiso in behalf of the municipality of Lumban; “Water Supply Contract” dated December 30, 2011 executed between respondent Guera in behalf of Majayjay and Mayor Domingo G. Panganiban in tehalf of the municipality cf Sta, Cruz,DECISION OMB-L-A-12-0332-G Gruezo, et. al. us. Guera, et. al. Page 16 of 21 Thus, for all intents and purposes, it is the municipality of Majayjay that would be answerable to the municipalities of Lumban and Sta. Cruz in case of any breach, default, or delay in the delivery of the specified volume of potable water by IBDC. This situation places Majayjay at a gross and manifest disadvantage because it would be guaranteeing the fault or breach of a third party. Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official.°* The Supreme Court in the case of Arcenio us. Pagorogon’s defined Grave Misconduct as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. Misconduct warranting removal from office of an officer must have direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of office.36 In the present case, the execution, approval, and ratification of the bulk water contract by all the respondents resulted in the giving of unwarranted benefits, advantage, and preference to IBDC, to the damage and prejudice of Majayjay. The respondents’ acts amount to Bey 8 CSC vs. Belagan, G.R. No. 132164, October 19, 2004. 88 224 SCRA 246, July 5, 1993, 86 Tenza vs. Espinelli, 108 SCRA 157. rice or roe ongvosuan | cenTieD TRUE COPY OF THE Onto | ISRAEL L parEDECISION OMB-L-A-12-0332-6 Gruezo, et. al. vs. Guera, et. al Page 17 of 21 second mode of violating Section 3(e)*7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019. Likewise, by entering into the two (2) water supply contracts that are manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the municipality of Majayjay, respondent Guera had unmistakably failed to exercise the due diligence required of a head of office, to the damage and prejudice of the municipality. His mere act of entering into said water supply contracts which are manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to Majayjay constitutes the very act prohibited under Section 3(g)°8 of R.A. No. 3019. These acts of the respondents are tantamount to maladministration and willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of office, and are clear transgressions of the law, amounting to the administrative offense of Grave Misconduct. With regard to the complainants’ prayer for the preventive suspension of the respondents, the same has become moot and academic in view of the resolution of the instant administrative complaint. In administrative proceedings, the requisite proof is substantial evidence, i.e., the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind % {e] Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. % (g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby. “ufFIC# OF te OMBUDSMAN [conte THE ORGINAL . ‘ONG = PROPERDECISION (OMB-L-A-12-0332-G Gruezo, et. al. vs. Guera, et. al Page 18 of 21 might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Corollary thereto and prescinding from the above disquisitions, there is no doubt that there exists substantial evidence to hold herein respondents administratively liable for Grave Misconduct. The law does not tolerate misconduct by a civil servant. The respondents’ acts in question undoubtedly violate the norm of decency and diminish or tend to diminish the people’s respect for those in the government service. When an officer or employee is disciplined, the object is the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public’s faith and confidence in the government.*° The offense of Grave Misconduct is punishable by dismissal from the service, consonant with Rule 10, Section 46(A) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service‘!, with the accompanying accessory penalties, as provided under Section 52(a) of the same rules. WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents TEOFILO B. GUERA, ANA LINDA C. ROSAS, LAURO C. MENTILLA, MAURO C. ARAGON, JUANCHO M. ANDAYA, ANTONIO S. ZORNOSA, JR., MARIO O. MERCOLISA, JR., JOVANIE ANN G. ESQUILLO, and ® Bien vs. Bo, G-R. No. 179333, August 3, 2010. * Civil Service Commission vs. Cortez, G.R, No. 155732, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 593, citing Bautista vs. Negado, 108 Phil. 283, 289 (1960). *! Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 1101502 dated November 18, 2011 circ or 1 onsvosuan — | SRAEL L POpRE ous FFDECISION OMB-L-A-12-0332-G Gruezo, et. al. us. Guera, et. al. Page 19 of 21 E™ “x BERNARDO I, DE VILLA are found GUILTY of the administrative offense of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and are hereby meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE, with the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking civil service examinations If, by virtue of the May 13, 2013 elections, any of the respondents are re-elected to the same elective position that they are currently holding, then the doctrine in the case of Aguinaldo vs. Santos, et. al.# will apply and the instant administrative case becomes moot and academic. If, however, the penalty of dismissal from the service can no longer be implemented because of expiration of term or separation from the service, then the corresponding accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking civil service examinations will still apply. The Honorable Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government, is hereby directed to implement this Order immediately upon receipt hereof pursuant to Section 7, Rule Ill of Administrative “2G.R, No, 94115, August 21, 1992. [rae ore sa eeDECISION OMB-L-A-12-0332-G Gruezo, et. al. us. Guera, et. al Page 20 of 21 Order No. 07%, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17 dated September 7, 2003, in relation to Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 2006 dated April 11, 2006, and to promptly inform this Office of the action taken hereon. SO DECIDED. Quezon City, Philippines. February 21, 2013. Ongti Karka Q, Tom -Turone efeilr3 ILE LARLA A. TAN-ENE) Graft Investigation & Prosecution Officer IT Reviewed by: / \ dL ORACION A. AGI A ha is Director Recommending Approval: Bare 8. Wier aati GERARD A. MOSQ) ‘JUL 0.5 2018 Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Approved /Disapproved: cont Baad Spe [po Ombudsman OF ene as wa * Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman.DECISION OMB-L-A-12-0332-G Gruezo, et.al. vs. Guera, et. cl Page 21 of 21 Copy Furnished: FROILAN T. GRUEZO A. Luna St., Brgy. San Francisco, Majayjay, Laguna PILIPINAS PARA SA PINOY {FPP} 640 Morales Ave., Brgy. Gen. Paulino Santos, Koronadal City ATTY. PATERNO L. ESMAQUEL ATTY. MARLON P. VALDERAMA ATTY. LLOYD M. LEQUIN ATTY. NORBERTO B. RUIZ ATTY. MEILINE C. MEDALLA-MAQUILING Florentino & Esmaquel Law Office Counsel for the complainants Unit 1706, 17 Fir., Prestige Tower, F. Ortigas Jr. Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City TEOFILO B. GUERA No. 361, Brgy. San Francisco, Majayjay, Laguna ANA LINDA C. ROSAS JUANCHO M. ANDAYA Both of: Brgy. Oobi, Majayjay, Laguna LAURO C. MENTILLA Brgy. Suba, Majayjay, Laguna MAURO C. ARAGON Brgy. P. Oriquel, Majayjay, Laguna ANTONIO S. ZORNOSA, JR. Brgy. San Miguel, Majayjay, Laguna MARIO O. MERCOLISA, JR. JOVANIE ANN G. ESQUILLO Both of: Brgy. San Francisco, Majayjay, Laguna BERNARDO I. DE VILLA Brgy. Villa Nogales, Majayjay, Laguna ATTY. ERECZUREX A. LANZUELA Counsel for respondents Rosas, Mentilla, Aragon, Andaya, Zornosa, Jr., Mercolisa, Jr., Esquillo, and de Villa 2r¢ Fir. Rural Bank of Rizal, P. Burgos St., San Pablo City, Laguna cen ceESe vege Sonn ake