By Jovee Marie N. dela Cruz
THE Office of the Ombudsman on Tuesday filed graft charges against ranking officials of the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) in connection with the allegedly anomalous awarding of maintenance and janitorial contracts amounting to P400 million.
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales accused LRTA former Administrator Melquiades Robles, Federico Canar Jr., Dennis Francisco, Evelyn Macalino, Marilou Liscano, Elmo Stephen Triste, Eduardo Abiva, Nicholas Ombao, Roger Vaño, Maynard Tolosa and Juliet Labisto of violating Section 3(e) of the Antigraft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act 3019).
Morales also said facing indictment before the Sandiganbayan service providers are Lilia Diaz and Dennis Acorda of the joint venture of COMM Builders and Technology Philippines Corp., PMP Inc. and Gradski Soabracaj GRAS.
She said her office also found Canar, Francisco, Triste, Macalino, Liscano, Abiva, Ombao, Vaño, Tolosa and Labisto guilty of misconduct.
“They were ordered suspended for six months. In case of separation from service, the suspension is convertible to a fine equivalent to respondent’s six months’ salary,” Morales added.
In January 2009 the Ombudsman said the LRTA entered into a contract with the joint-venture company for the preventive and corrective maintenance of the trains, rails and depot facilities of LRT Line 1.
Under the contract, the company was obliged to deploy at least 793 workers and janitors to the areas of the LRT line stations and rolling stocks, Morales added.
“[Documents show that in 2009 the JV was paid the combined costs of human capital and consumed material totaling P400.6 million,” she said. The Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office found that only 209 personnel were deployed by the company to the stations and depots.
In addition, “the disbursement vouchers of the series of monthly transactions had been processed without payrolls.” The maintenance and janitorial contracts were extended until July 2013.
“The joint venture company is not justified to deviate from its minimum commitment [and] it is rather unfortunate that some public respondents aided the contractor in its desire to reduce its committed number of janitorial work force,” Morales said.
She said Robles and his coaccused cannot sweepingly claim that they had regularly performed their duties because, had they done so, they would not have given in to the demands of a private contractor.
“Instead of pushing for the implementation of the awarded contract, the respondents agreed to the reduction of janitorial manpower,” she added.