Stay my dismissal, Tupas asks CA
Tupas being caught by the TNT camera in
a prayerful mood.
A day after a new governor was sworn into office, dismissed Gov. Niel Tupas Sr. and two members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan are asking the Court of Appeals (CA) to prevent the implementation of their orders of dismissal.
At the same time, expressions of support for the beleaguered governor continue to pour. Yesterday, it was reported that town mayors went to the Capitol where Tupas has been encamped since Sunday afternoon to show solidarity with the two-termer governor. The Philippine Councilor's League-Iloilo chapter has also issued a Statement of Support, copies of which were distributed to the media.
In a 13-page petition for certiorari with prayer for temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction, Tupas and Board Members Domingo Oso and Cecilia Capadosa said that Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and Interior Sec. Ronaldo Puno acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the immediate implementation of their dismissal order.
In a December 4, 2005 decision, the Office of the Ombudsman ordered the dismissal and disqualification from public office of Tupas, Oso and Capadosa after it found them guilty of grave misconduct.
The administrative case stemmed from a complaint by the People's Graftwatch Of Iloilo Inc. (PGII) after Tupas extended a financial assistance to a conference by the Provincial Board Members' League of the Philippines-Western Visayas two years ago.
PGII alleged that Tupas extended financial assistance in the absence of an appropriation. Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) regional director Evelyn Trompeta served the order of dismissal Monday afternoon just as Vice Gov. Roberto Armada was taking his oath of office before Interior Undersecretary Wencelito Andanar at the DILG regional office.
Board Member Emmanuel Gallar was also sworn into office as vice governor along with Armada.
In ordering the immediate dismissal of Tupas, Oso and Capadosa, Gutierrez gravely abused her discretion, the Provincial Legal Office argued in the petition.
The PLO cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Office of the Ombudsman vs. Pendatun Laja, decided last May 2, 2006, wherein it was ruled that decisions by the Ombudsman are not immediately executory, and that respondents still have 10 days to appeal.
"In the instant case, petitioners upon receipt of the decision of the Ombudsman are given ten (10) days to file a motion for reconsideration or fifteen (15) days to file an appeal. The decision becomes final only when petitioners herein fail to file said motion for reconsideration or perfect an appeal within the given period," the petition states. It goes without saying that the public respondent Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion and gross ignorance of the law in holding that her two assailed decisions are immediately executory "upon receipt."
In the same vein, public respondent Ronaldo Puno, is similarly liable for gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct in immediately enforcing a patently illegal decision dismissing petitioners from service without giving them a chance to file motion for reconsideration or perfect an appeal therefrom. This to say the least is the blatant violation of procedural due process ," PLO chief, lawyer Salvador Cabaluna III further argued.