Sandiganbayan affirms graft ex-Sipalay mayor’s conviction

By Gerome Dalipe

THE Sandiganbayan has affirmed the conviction of former mayor Oscar Montilla, Jr. of Sipalay City, Negros Occidental.

In a resolution dated Jan. 6, 2020, the anti-graft court’s Fourth Division denied Montilla’s motion for reconsideration and upheld his conviction for delaying the suspension order of his five subordinates in 2005.

“Clearly, the manner by which Montilla chose to handle the implementation of the Sipalay employees’ suspension reveals his utter indifference to the consequences of his actions” read the Sandiganbayan’s resolution.

The Sandiganbayan has found Montilla guilty of violating Montiila, Jr. of violating Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

“We find that Montilla exhibited gross negligence in delaying the implementation of the ombudsman’s suspension order,” read the anti-graft court’s decision.

The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas charged Montilla for violation of the anti-graft law for his refusal to suspend the five City Hall employees.

The anti-graft office suspended Evangeline Seneres, Eva Sabusap, Fernando Balbin, Noel Villanueva and Renato Manill for negligence.

The Ombudsman-Visayas imposed the three-month suspension on the five City Hall officials on Nov. 14, 2005.

But Montilla later filed a motion to defer the implementation of the suspension order. He cited the opinion of the City Legal Officer, which argued that the ombudsman’s ruling is not yet final and executory.

This prompted the anti-graft office to file administrative charges against Montilla, saying he gave “unwarranted benefit” to the five City Hall employees when he delayed for years the implementation of the suspension order without a legal basis.

Replying to the charges, Montilla said he did not immediately enforce the suspension of the five employees upon the advice of their city legal officer.

The mayor said he directed the city legal officer to enforce the suspension, but the legal officer advised him to delay the implementation since the respondents have not yet received the order.

In his motion, Montilla argued that he is not guilty of gross inexcusable negligence since he merely relied on the advice of his legal officer.

Montilla said he promptly ordered the suspension of the Sipalay employees after he was informed by retired Assistant Ombudsman Virginia Santiago that the suspension order cannot be stayed by the filing of a motion for reconsideration.

The fact that he eventually ordered the suspension of the Sipalay employees, he said, is proof the employees did not obtain any benefit from his postponement of the implementation of the ombudsman’s suspension order.

In denying Montilla’s motion, the Sandiganbayan said it was not convinced on Montilla’s argument that he was merely taking advice from the city lawyer.

First off, the anti-graft court said there was an “apparent conflict of interest” on Balbin when he advised against the implementation of the ombudsman’s order.

“The court, thus, finds and so rules that Montilla exhibited gross inexcusable negligence in delaying the implementation of the suspension order against the Sipalay employees,” read the Sandiganbayan’s resolution.

When he refused to enforce the suspension order, the Sandiganbayan said he gave the employees the unwarranted benefit not as city employees, but as persons “who were found guilty of negligence in the performance of official duties for the purchase of overpriced medicines.”