The Court of Appeals has sustained the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing former Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao governor Zaldy Ampatuan from the service following a lifestyle check that found him with unexplained wealth and underdeclared assets amounting to P70.67 million from 2000 to 2009.
In a decision, the CA’s Fourteenth Division through Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting junked the petition filed by Ampatuan, one of the accused in the Maguindanao massacre, which sought to overturn the Ombudsman’s decision and order issued on June 26, 2015 and Sept. 23, 2015.
The June 26, 2015 decision of the Ombudsman found Ampatuan guilty of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct and meted him the penalty of dismissal from the service with accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding office, and barring him from taking civil service examination.
The Sept. 23, 2015 resolution, meanwhile, denied Ampatuan’s motion for reinvestigation of the decision.
The decision of the Ombudsman arose from the joint-affidavit complaint filed in September 2010 by the lifestyle check panel of the Office of the Ombudsman against the then ARMM governor for dishonesty and grave misconduct.
The anti-graft body noted that Ampatuan served as assemblyman of the ARMM Regional Legislative Assembly prior to 1998 when he was elected as mayor of Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao for three terms from 1998-2007.
However, Ampatuan did not finish his last term as mayor from 2004-2007 after he ran and won as ARMM Regional Governor on August 2005 and was reelected in 2008.
The Ombudsman said the petitioner submitted his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth for the years 2000-2009 where he declared a net worth of P6.99 million with no liabilities until it ballooned to a net worth of P19.29 million with total assets of P36.49 million and total liabilities of P17.2 million in his 2009 SALN.
Ampatuan also declared Maguindanao Pawnshop as his only business interest.
However, it was discovered that Ampatuan owns at least 38 houses and lots in Shariff Aguak, Cotabato City, Davao City and Metro Manila amounting to P58.48 million that were not declared in his SALN.
The Ombudsman said the total value of acquisition per year by the petitioner with respect to the houses and lots far exceed his annual net.
On the other hand, the Ombudsman said the former ARMM governor and his wife Bai Johaira Midtimbang, who served as municipal mayor of Datu Hoffer, Maguindanao, own a total of 24 vehicles worth at least P46.96 million.
The anti-graft body also discovered that Ampatuan has 26 firearms registered in his named worth P6 million and that he went out of the country 16 times in a span of five years.
The Ombudsman said Ampatuan’s unexplained wealth and underdeclared assets for the years 2000-2009 amounted to P70,671,176.
In upholding the decision of the Ombudsman, the CA did not give credence to Ampatuan’s claim that he was not able to file his counter-affidavit due to the negligence of his counsel.
As a result, Ampatuan said he was deprived of due process, thus, should be exempt from the rule that a lawyer’s negligence binds the client.
“With the foregoing, the contention that petitioner that he was denied due process by reason of his former counsel’s gross negligence is clearly bereft of merit,” the appellate court ruled.
“As can be gleaned from the proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman, the petitioner was given ample opportunity to file his counter-affidavit and opportunity to explain or defend himself,” it said.
The CA explained that based on the records of the case, the Office of the Ombudsman even gave Ampatuan an opportunity to file his verified position paper in a resolution issued on Feb. 17, 2011.
But the former governor still failed to comply and instead, through his counsel, filed motions questioning other orders issued by the Ombudsman, in an apparent bid to delay the proceedings.
The CA also dismissed Ampatuan’s claim that the Ombudsman erred in finding him guilty of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct, and consequently dismissing him from the service.
“In this case, the evidence presented by the respondent [lifestyle check panel] well supports the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman that petitioner did not only fail to disclose all his and his wife’s assets but also failed to provide an explanation as to how he and/or his wife acquired assets,” the CA stressed.
Associate Justices Ramon Garcia and Lencia Dimagiba concurred with the ruling.
