CEBU, Philippines — The counter join office has rejected the criminal and regulatory objections recorded against the previous and present authority of the Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD) for purportedly approving the concede of advantages and bunoses which were refused by Commission on Audit (COA) in review.
Join examination and indictment officer II Farrah Fortich-Quimada expelled the counter unite case and grave unfortunate behavior without preference pending last goals of the COA.
" Given the pendency of respondents' intrigue from the notification of remittances before the COA Regional Office, it is untimely if not inappropriate for this Office to govern on the individual respondent's risk, in case pre-emptive COA's autonomous appraisal of the case," expressed the joint goals.
In their grievance, Field Investigation Office (FIO) affirmed MCWD previous general administrator Armando Ramon Paredes, previous partner general chief Vesmindo Santiago, previous directorate Eligio Pacaña, Juan Saul Montecillo, Cynthia Barrit, Manuel Legaspi, Daniel Landingin, Benjamin Militar, Department Manager A-Human Resource Department Tertuliana Andaya, and Chairman of the Board Joel Mari Yu damaged enemy of unite and grave wrongdoing.
They were blamed for encouraging the give and circulation of over the top and unpredictable incidental advantages to themselves and to general population workers of MCWD like thirteenth month pay and money presents for 2010-2011, execution based reward (PBB), aggregate exchange understanding motivator, corporate execution impetus reward, and school opening reward
FIO claimed they based their grievance in the notification of prohibition issued by the COA in respect to the addressed distributions, the COA Trennium Audit Report on MCWD for 2010-2012, payment vouchers, among others.
Purportedly, COA denied the installment of the thirteenth month pay and money blessings to the Board of Directors (BOD) of MCWD according to the Department of Budget and Management letter dated January 2, 2002 which gives that individuals from the BOD of organizations are not salaried authorities of the legislature.
On the installment of PBB, FIO claimed that it has no legitimate premise according to Section 13 of Presidential Decree 198.
FIO further expressed that different advantages were denied by the COA becase these are not among the advantages approved under the Senate and House of Representatives Joint Resolution No. 89, arrangement of 2009.
Respondents denied the claims documented against them for absence of truthful and lawful premise.
Additionally, they asserted that the notification of forbiddance were not yet last and definitive pending intrigue.
Quimada, in her 13-page wrote joint goals, expelled the case since respondents' risk is subject to the legitimacy or shortcoming of the addressed payment