The Office of the Ombudsman has found probable cause to file graft charges against top officials of the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) for violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) in connection with the anomalous implementation of the maintenance and janitorial contracts.
Facing indictment before the Sandiganbayan are 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. Also included in the indictment are service providers Lilia Diaz and Dennis Acorda of the joint venture (JV) of COMM Builders and Technology Philippines, Corporation, PMP Incorporated and Gradski Soabracaj GRAS.
Aside from this, the Office of the Ombudsman 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.
In January 2009, the LRTA entered into a contract with the JV for the preventive and corrective maintenance of the trains, rails and depot facilities of LRT Line 1. Under the contract, the JV was obliged to deploy at least 793 workers and janitors to the areas of the LRT line stations and rolling stocks.
Documents show that in 2009, the JV was paid “the combined costs of human capital and consumed material totaling P400.6 million.” The Field Investigation Office, as complainant, found that only 209 personnel were deployed by the JV 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 Resolution stated that “the Joint Venture 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 workforce.”
Robles, et.al. “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,” added the Joint Resolution.
According to Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, “instead of pushing for the implementation of the awarded contract, the respondents agreed to the reduction of janitorial manpower.” ###