Suspended Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama. | CDN Photo/ Pia Piquero
CEBU CITY, Philippines – Suspended Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama and his legal team have filed a motion before the Office of the Ombudsman to lift the suspension order against him and seven other city hall officials.
This developed after the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed their petition for certiorari with a “prayer for issuance of injunctive relief” on May 17, citing a lack of “meritorious grounds.”
CA dismisses petition for certiorari filed by Cebu City Mayor Rama, seven others
In a 44-page manifestation filed on May 28, the grounds in support of the motion to lift the preventive suspension order were detailed.
According to the manifestation, the suspension order from the Ombudsman, or the “assailed order,” is alleged to be solely based on the uncontroverted and biased information provided in the joint complaint affidavit of the complainants dated February 23.
The manifestation also indicated that “Mayor Rama and the electorate of Cebu City will suffer grave and irreparable damage if the order of preventive suspension is not lifted in the meantime.”
On May 17, the CA’s Special Tenth Division released its decision stating that petitioners failed to first file a motion seeking reconsideration of the May 2 decision of the Office of the Ombudsman to place them under preventive suspension.
READ:
Ombudsman suspends Bohol gov, 68 others over Chocolate Hills fiasco
“A motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended. Although the Court has recognized exceptions to the requirement, petitioners failed to allege meritorious grounds in the petition why it was not availed of before filing the instant petition,” reads part of the decision.
Additionally, the CA stated that the “original transcript transaction receipts from the private courier, as proof of mailing of the petition, are not appended in the petition.”
It said that “the assailed OMB order attached in the petition is a mere photocopy.”
EXPLAINER: Rama suspension and why the Ombudsman ordered it?
Earlier, the Ombudsman decided to place Rama and seven others under preventive suspension for six months based on the administrative complaint that was lodged by City Hall employees Filomena Atuel, Maria Almicar Dionggzon, Sybil Ann Ybañez, and Chito Dela Cerna.
The four questioned their reassignment and the city government’s refusal to pay their salaries for 10 months.
The other respondents of the complaint were lawyer Collin Rossell, Maria Theresa Rossell, Francis May Jacaban, Angelique Cabugao, Jay-Ar Pescante, Lester Joey Beniga, and Nelyn Sanrojo.
In an eight-page resolution, Ombudsman Samuel Martires said they found sufficient grounds to put Rama and the other respondents under preventive suspension for grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a public officer and conduct prejudicial to the best interest among others.
According to Martires, there was “strong evidence” to prove the guilt of the respondents.