The Court of Appeals has ordered the dismissal from the service of two officials of the Department of Social Welfare and Development for their involvement in the release and utilization of the P10-million Priority Development Assistance Fund, also known as pork barrel funds, of Quezon City First District Rep. Vincent “Bingbong” Crisologo in 2009.
In a 20-page decision, the CA’s Special Fifth Division through Associate Justice of Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla, modified the resolution issued by the Office of the Ombudsman on June 19, 2017 which found appellants Mateo Montano and Pacita Sarino guilty of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Instead, the CA found Montano and Sarino guilty of gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service since there was no showing that they benefitted from their “irresponsible” acts.
“Accordingly, they are dismissed from government service with all the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification for reemployment in the government service,” the appellate court ruled.
Montano was the DSWD Undersecretary for General Administration and Support Services Group, while Sarino served as the assistant bureau director of the Protective Services Bureau of the DSWD.
The appellate court junked the arguments of the petitioners that the release of Crisologo’s PDAF to Kalookan Assistance Council Inc. (KACI) was compliant with the internal rules of the DSWD and that the project submitted by KACI received favorable reviews from the DSWD offices concerned.
Contrary to the claim of Montano and Sarino, the CA noted that three officials of the DSWD actually did not give a favorable recommendation for the proposed projects of KACI such as medical/hospitalization assistance, transportation, calamity, death, burial, educational expenses, small-scale livelihood, socio-cultural expenses, small-scale infrastructure assistance and values training.
“Contrary to petitioners’ argument that the procedure they followed was the prevailing practice at that time, the approval of the disbursement of funds in favor of KACI violated Section 75 of the General Appropriations Act . . .” the appellate court said.
