MikeLigalig.com

Ombudsman dismisses “GSIS Case” vs Echiverri
09 March 2012

          Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales dismissed the administrative and criminal charges against Caloocan City Mayor Enrico Echieverri and three other Caloocan City officials relative to the alleged non-remittance of employees premium contributions to the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).

          In a 29-page Joint Resolution dated March 6, 2012, Ombudsman Morales dismissed the complaints against Echiverri, City Treasurer Evelina Garma, City Budget Officer Jesusa Garcia and City Accountant Edna Centeno after finding “no substantial evidence to hold respondents either administratively or criminally liable.” She also ordered that the Preventive Suspension slapped on said officials be lifted.

          The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Caloocan City Vice-Mayor Edgar Erice against the said respondents, for Violation of RA 8291 (the GSIS Act of 1997), Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

          Erice based his complaint on a letter sent by GSIS Pres. and General Manager Robert Vergara alleging “that from July 1997 to December 2002 and from January 2007 to December 31, 2010, the premium contributions representing the personal shares of the employees, as well as the government shares of Caloocan City, were not remitted to the GSIS and remained unpaid as of December 31, 2010; and that the employees’ shares from July 1997 to Dec. 2010 were likewise not remitted to the GSIS”. The letter further stated that as of Dec. 2010, the City incurred total obligation amounting to P343,814,739.85.         

          In the Resolution, the Ombudsman stated that “Complainant bears the onus of proving that respondents’ questioned acts were attended with manifest corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule. This he failed to discharge.”

          The Resolution stated that based on records, Echiverri had “taken steps to ensure the prompt payment of the city’s current premium contributions and to update its remittances to the GSIS.”

          But such efforts were hindered by GSIS’ conflicting computations of the city government’s accounts. In an April 4, 2006 letter, the GSIS stated that “as of March 31, 2006, the total compulsory premium arrearages including interests of the City Government of Caloocan amounts to P126,506,221.82”. On the other hand, in a June 28, 2006 letter sent by the City Treasurer to GSIS, the City Government claimed that “as of March 31, 2006,we have remitted the premiums due from our city employees until December 2003 having a net balance of only P1,504,035.31”.

          Still, in a July 17, 2006 letter sent by GSIS, it said Caloocan’s total obligation amounts to P138,295,405.48. Finally, the GSIS’ Chief Legal Counsel sent a final demand in an August 2010 letter, for the remittance of the sum of P337,181,809.46.

          The Resolution stated that determination of the accurate amount of the City’s obligation “was not solely dependent on respondents but, in a large measure, on the institutional and logistical capabilities of the GSIS which were beyond the control of respondents.”

          It further said “Recall that the city was assessed to pay more than P300,000,000 as of December 31, 2010. At the time Echiverri signed the GSIS MOA, however, the city government was liable for only P15,786,039.87 representing the principal and P54,807,170.63 representing interest, for a total of around P70,000,000.”

          The Ombudsman also dismissed charges of Violation RA 3019, following jurisprudence that “where the administrative case is dismissed, and the basis for dismissal constituted an essential element of the crime, the criminal case must likewise be dismissed.”

          Ombudsman Morales similarly dismissed charges of Violation of RA 8291 against the respondents, saying that the non-remitted premiums pertained to contributions which should have been settled during the term of then Mayor Malonzo. “Thus, their non-remittance within the period prescribed under the GSIS Act of 1997, or non-compliance with the period prescribed therein for the remittance of the monthly premiums, cannot be directly or primarily attributed to respondents.”#

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=88468.0