CA: No entry of judgment

The Court of Appeals has certified that no Entry of Judgment yet has been issued by the CA 18th Division on the recent ruling while dismissed Dumanjug Mayor Efren Guntrano Gica already reassumed his office.

Signed by CA Visayas Station Division clerk of court Ulysses Lumangtad, the certification was issued on September 24, 2018 to former Dumanjug mayor Nelson Gamaliel Garcia, the complainant of the case.

Garcia earlier asked the Department of Interior and Local Government to act on usurpation of authority and an apparent abandonment of duty which allegedly occurred in the municipality. DILG-7 legal officer Ian Kenneth Lucero declined to comment on the issue.

Gica’s father and counsel, Attorney Edgar Gica, said there is no usurpation of authority in the case of the mayor citing Section 46 of Republic Act No. 7160, also known as the Local Government Code of 1991, on the temporary vacancy in the office of the local chief executive.

He cited Section 46 (b) which stated that “temporary incapacity shall terminate upon submission to the appropriate sanggunian of a written declaration by the local chief executive concerned that he has reported back to office. In cases where the temporary incapacity is due to legal causes, the local chief executive concerned shall also submit necessary documents showing that said legal causes no longer exist.”

Garcia, in a letter dated September 13, 2018, told DILG-7 Director Leocadio Trovela that Gica assumed office on August 1, 2018 without waiting for the finality of the decision of the CA. Meanwhile, Vice Mayor Rene Asentista who assumed the Office of the Mayor as directed by DILG, also abandoned his duties without filing any letter of resignation.

In the implementation of the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing Gica from office, the DILG directed Asentista to assume the position of municipal mayor and Councilor Cesar Baricuatro as vice mayor on January 4, 2018.

The Office of the Ombudsman earlier dismissed Gica from public office after he was found guilty of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct for allegedly falsifying a liquidation report.

Gica filed a petition for review with the CA which reversed the decision of the Ombudsman.

Garcia filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the CA citing Section 4 of the Rule 52 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Its provides that the pendency of motion for reconsideration filed on time and by the proper party shall stay the execution of the judgment or final resolution sought to be reconsidered unless the court, for good reasons, shall otherwise direct.—

Editor/BRP

Gregg M. Rubio, Banat News Copy