Danao mayor charged before Sandiganbayan

Danao City Mayor Ramonito Durano III is facing criminal charges before the Sandiganbayan because of his refusal to pay the back wages of the seven city government employees despite an order from the Civil Service Commission.

The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas indicted Durano before the Sandiganbayan for violation of the Administrative Code of 1987.

The case stemmed from the complaint filed by Orlando Dagatan Jr., Amabella Gomez, Cecilia Lawas, Celso Aylwin Manulat, Leo Enriquez, Conchita Batuto, and Maria Sofielyn Camance. The complainants accused the mayor of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Durano allegedly issued a memorandum on July 1, 2013 revoking the appointments of the complainants which were made by his predecessor, Ramon Durano Jr., because these were allegedly done without going through the screening process of the Personnel Selection Board (PSB).

The mayor was also accused of recalling the promotional appointments made by his predecessor and ordered all concerned employees to be restored to their former positions. All employees whose appointments had been recalled were subsequently barred from entering the work place on July 9, 2013.

The complainants said they sought a reconsideration and asked for their reinstatement citing an order from the Civil Service Commission. However, the mayor allegedly refused. The complainants brought the matter before the CSC regional office, which subsequently issued a favorable decision.

Durano filed a petition for review before the CSC central office but was likewise dismissed. Durano was ordered to reinstate the complainants to their respective positions and pay their back wages and other benefits.

Durano allegedly refused to heed the order prompting the complainants to bring the matter before the antigraft body.

Graft investigation and prosecution officer III Portia Pacquiao found sufficient evidence to hold Durano for trial because of his failure to comply with the CSC order.

“Respondent’s protracted delay in complying with the CSCRO No. VII decision despite its finality caused prejudice to the public service and to complainants who have been deprived of their means of living since July 2013 when their appointments were revoked by respondent,” the anti-graft resolution reads.

“In the same way, his refusal to release to them their back salaries and other benefits would show his willful and deliberate defiance to the directive of CSCRO No. VII for the implementation of its decision,” it added.