Ombudsman orders the suspension of Guardo

FOR failing to remit financial statements during his time as barangay captain of Sambag 1, now Cebu City Councilor Jerry Guardo was slapped with a three-month suspension without pay by the Office of the Ombudsman Visayas.

In a decision dated December 9, 2016 and received by Guardo only last week, Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas Paul Elmer Clemente found Guardo administratively guilty of simple neglect of duty for failing to submit the yearend financial statements of Barangay Sambag 1 to the Commission on Audit (COA) for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013.

The same decision states that in case the suspension cannot be enforced due to the respondent’s separation from service, the penalty of three-month suspension without pay shall be converted into a fine of three months’ worth of salary which can be deducted from his retirement benefits, accrued leave credits or any receivable amounts from government.

Sought for comment, Guardo believed that the suspension order was now “moot and academic” as he was no longer the barangay captain.

However, Guardo said that he will pay to the anti-graft office the imposed fine equivalent to three months’ worth of his salary as barangay captain within the month.

Guardo received a monthly pay of P18,000 as barangay captain.

The decision stemmed from an administrative complaint filed by the Ombudsman’s field investigation office in March 2015 against Guardo.
Under COA regulations, year-end financial statements should be submitted by barangays to the auditor within 60 days after the 31st day of December every year.

“Respondent’s omission more appropriately constitute as Simple Neglect of Duty, which has been defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected from an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference,” the decision read.

A criminal complaint filed by the Ombudsman’s field investigation office against Guardo on the same issue was dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas for lack of probable cause.

“If at all, respondent’s liability for such failure may only be administrative in nature, which is appropriately treated in a separate administrative case,” the decision read.