Three City Engineers Dismissed for Graft

Mayor Michael Rama has finally implemented the order of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas to dismiss from service three Cebu City engineers after the anti-graft investigator found them liable for graft and corruption.

Assistant Cebu City Engineer June Nadine Sison, Engineers Juanito Pua and Joel Pasatiempo of the Department of Engineering and Public Works (DEPW) had already received their dismissal order last June 24. Pua used to head the construction division while Pasatiempo was a project engineer.

Strong Evidence

Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Pelagio Apostol has concurred with the findings and recommendations of Graft Investigator Edsel Ensomo to dismiss the three engineers claiming that the evidences presented against them by complainant Robert Montenegro is strong.

Montenegro is the owner and manager of FE&A Construction Services that has been awarded to undertake various projects in Cebu City sometimes in 2011 and 2012.

He claimed that the three engineers demanded “dole outs” from him every time he wins project bidding.

Subcontract

The complainant said the three city engineers had requested him to allow them to subcontract some of his projects using a dummy. He said one time when he refused to grant their request, the respondents suspended his project for the construction of stone masonry at Sitio Riverside in Barangay Pahina Central last January 2012.

Demand for incentives and “dole outs”

Montenegro, a construction contractor, claimed that the three engineers approached him and demanded one new computer unit and a high-tech camera, but he refused to give in to their demands since he had already given them several “incentives and monetary dole outs.”

He also said that when he requested the respondents to release his deposits called “retention money” equivalent to 10 percent of his contract on the road concreting with slope protection and drainage system project at Barangay Toong in the hinterlands of Cebu City, they three engineers refused.

During the investigation, Montenegro said Pasatiempo demanded materials for the construction of his house while Pua allegedly demanded P18,000-worth of volleyball uniforms and P10,000 in May 20, 2011 and another P20,000 three months later.

He said respondent Sison “unduly influenced” him to give the camera and the computer.

“They were angry at me because I did not give them what they wanted from me,” said Montenegro, referring to the camera and the computer unit.

Counter-affidavits

In their counter-affidavits, the three engineers argued that the reason why they refused to release the retention money of the complainant is because his project in Barangay Toong had so many defects that needs back jobs.

They also denied having demanded a ‘high-tech camera’ and computer from the complainant.

But during the hearing at the Ombudsman, the engineers’ counsel Francis Bagaslao has failed to refute the solicitation or demand for the camera and the computer.

Graft investigator’s findings

The graft investigator said the defense counsel also did not contradict demand for alleged subcontract and also failed to rebut that Pua received money from complainant.

The graft investigator described the testimony of the complainant as “credible and sincere.”

Ensomo said the filing of the complaint is but right and proper to stop “respondents’ practice of solicitation in the exercise of their official functions.”

“In the civil service, public servants must display at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity,” the decision reads.

Motion for Recon

While Sison received the order dismissing her from the service, she made a marginal note into the one-page document.

“Received with much sadness considering that she still have a pending Motion for Reconsideration questioning the dismissal order of the Ombudsman. I still firmly maintain my innocence of the charges levelled against me by Montenegro.” Sison said in the note.