GROSS NEGLIGENCE
CLO endorses criminal and administrative raps vs. Sonalan

By Maricar M. Calubiran

The three-man fact finding team of the City Legal Office (CLO) has recommended the filing of administrative and criminal charges against lawyer Reynaldo Sonalan for his failure to present the evidences against former City Treasurer Romeo Manikan which caused the dismissal of the latter's power pilferage case.

In the seven-page recommendation signed by Atty. Edgardo Gil, chief of the CLO, and his members Atty. Lorna Laurea and Atty. Mario Caoyonan, they recommended the filing of administrative charges for gross negligence and grave misconduct under the Revised Administrative Code as well as criminal charges under Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code against Sonalan.

Article 209 is the betrayal of trust by an attorney or revelation of secrets. If evidence warrants, Sonalan could be removed from the government service and he may also lost all his benefits.

The fact-finding team signed their recommendation last September 30,2005. It was received by Sonalan only in afternoon of October 7, 2005. The result of the investigation was released to the media Tuesday noon.

The findings stemmed from Sonalan's failure to present the evidences against Manikan in a case filed by the city government against the former and several others for violation of Republic Act 7832 or Anti-Pilferage Act of 1994. The case was filed before Judge Manuel Lobaton, Branch 39 of the Iloilo Regional Trial Court.

The court dismissed the case against Manikan for the failure of the prosecution to present the evidences gathered during the operation made by the Task Force Boltahe at Barangay Concepcion, City Proper. Sonalan was then a member of the City Legal Office who handled the case. The court informed the prosecution several times to present the evidence but to no avail.

The investigating team said Sonalan did not file any opposition or comment when Manikan filed a motion to close evidence. He also failed to attend hearings conducted by the court on Manikan’s motion even if he was already notified of the schedule of the hearings.

The team also contended that Sonalan appeared as private prosecutor in the said case without any authority from the chief of the CLO or from the mayor. He was only able to secure an authority to prosecute from the City Prosecution Office.

The fact finding team ruled, Sonalan’s act is a violation of the provisions of the Local Government Code that provides that the City Legal office shall represent only the local government unit in all civil actions and special proceedings only.

The investigating team also found out that Sonalan has already marked the wires allegedly confiscated by the members of the Task Force Boltahe. The confiscated wires are vital and material object evidence in the case.

During the trial, Sonalan admitted that he entrusted the custody and safekeeping of evidences to witness Joel Umetin, a casual electrician at the City Engineers Office. He also entrusted to Umetin the safekeeping and custody of documentary exhibits in the case.

Sonalan argued that the electric wires were of such length that he found it “prudent” to have Umetin keep the same in the latter’s possession as Umetin was always the one who brought the wires to court. He said Umetin requested him to have custody of the evidences against Manikan for convenience and expediency.

The fact-finding team also said Sonalan did not inquire with the members of the Task Force Boltahe on the whereabouts of the evidence. Witnesses said the evidences were just kept inside the cabinet one Task Force Boltahe member.

The probe team also said Sonalan did not call the witnesses to testify in court. Witnesses said that during the scheduled hearing on May 5, 2005, Sonalan saw them in the lobby of the court but they were chastised and even told to go home.