THE Court of Appeals has turned down the plea of President Rodrigo Duterte and five other Davao City officials to release the P300,000 cash bond that they posted in 2010 to stop the Office of the Ombudsman from implementing its order suspending them for six months for simple misconduct.
The court’s Special Former Special Eleventh Division said Duterte, then the mayor of Davao City, and his co-respondents would have to wait until the Supreme Court had ruled with finality on their case.
“There is no showing whether the Supreme Court has rendered a decision,” the court ruled.
Duterte, along with Davao city engineer Jose Gestuveo Jr., city administrator Wendell Avisado, city drainage maintenance unit chief retired Col. Yusop Jimlani, legal officer IV Elmer B. Raño, and city legal officer Melchor V. Quitain sought the release of their bonds after the appellate courte reversed with finality the Ombudsman’s decision dated April 21, 2010, and its order issued on May 6, 2010, suspending the petitioners for six months due to simple misconduct for the summary demolition of a canal-cover project funded by the national government in Davao City.
The court instead exonerated them from administrative liability in connection with the summary demolition of the project.
Duterte’s camp said the P2-million Nograles Park was demolished because it had worsened the flooding in the area.
But in ordering their suspension, the Ombudsman held that they failed to exercise prudence to ensure that the proper procedure in the demolition was complied.
Earlier, to stay the execution of the Ombudsman’s suspension order, the court granted the petitioners’ motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, but ordered them to post a P100,000 cash bond each.
On Aug. 4, 2010, the court indefinitely stopped the enforcement of the Ombudsman’s suspension order through the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, but directed the petitioners to post a cash bond in the sum of P200,000.
The appellate court noted that its Jan. 28, 2011 decision ordering the dismissal of the complaint against the petitioners was elevated to the high court by the Ombudsman.
It noted that the high court’s Third Division issued a resolution dated July 21, 2014, giving due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective memorandums within 30 days from notice.
