Ombudsman clears Rama of graft charges

Local

FORMER Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama and seven other city officials have been cleared by the Office of the Ombudsman of graft charges filed in connection with the reassignment of four employees from the City Assessor’s Office.

In a resolution dated September 1, 2025, the Ombudsman’s Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas dismissed the criminal complaint for lack of probable cause, ruling that the respondents did not act with “evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence” as alleged by the complainants.

The complaint was filed by Filomena E. Atuel, Maria Almicar E. Diongzon, Sybil Ann R. Ybañez, and Chito B. Dela Cerna on February 23, 2024, accusing Rama, City Administrator Collin N. Rosell, City Assessor Maria Theresa C. Rosell, and six others of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Also named as respondents were Francis May L. Jacaban, Angelique B. Cabugao, Jay-Ar B. Pescante, Lester Joey O. Beniga, and Nelyn P. Sanrojo — all officials of the Cebu City Government.

The Ombudsman ruled that while the respondents were all public officers discharging official functions, the essential elements of bad faith, manifest partiality, and undue injury were lacking.

“Only the first element of the offense is present and undisputed in this case. … The second and third elements of the offense are lacking,” the decision stated.

The complainants had alleged that Rama and his co-respondents acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith by refusing to reinstate them to their original positions and by withholding their salaries and benefits despite a Civil Service Commission (CSC) directive issued in October 2023.

However, the Ombudsman noted that Rama’s actions were grounded on procedural and legal justifications, emphasizing that he had filed a motion for reconsideration and a petition for review before the CSC Central Office — both of which effectively stayed the execution of the reinstatement order.

“Mayor Rama claimed that he had sufficient justification … having relied in good faith that the CSC Decisions were not yet final and executory and that the execution of a judgment is allowed only when it has become final and executory,” the resolution read.

The Ombudsman agreed, finding that Rama’s refusal to reinstate the employees was done in good faith and based on his understanding of administrative rules.

In dismissing the complaint, the Ombudsman cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in People v. Diosdado Pallasigue, where a municipal mayor was acquitted of graft for a similar situation involving delayed reinstatement of an employee due to a good-faith belief that a motion for execution was necessary.

“This Office finds merit in the defenses of Mayor Rama, thereby refuting claims that he acted with evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence,” the decision stated.

The ruling emphasized that good faith is always presumed unless proven otherwise and that an erroneous interpretation of procedural rules does not automatically constitute graft.

“Punishing [Rama] with imprisonment for his wrong understanding of procedural rules is not what the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act seeks to punish,” the Ombudsman noted, echoing the logic in Pallasigue.

Atuel, Diongzon, Ybañez, and Dela Cerna alleged that the city officials’ actions caused them “undue injury” when they were removed from the payroll, denied their salaries and benefits, and barred from resuming their duties at the Assessor’s Office.

They argued that these acts constituted violations of Section 3(e) and (f) of RA 3019, which prohibit public officers from giving “unwarranted benefits” or “causing undue injury” through manifest partiality or evident bad faith.

But the Ombudsman’s resolution found that the claims did not meet the evidentiary threshold required for criminal prosecution.

“In the present case, it is worthy to point out that Rama’s refusal, or failure, to reinstate complainants … was made in good faith,” the resolution stated.

The decision was approved by Assistant Ombudsman Dante Vargas and Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas.

This ruling comes just a month after the Ombudsman found Rama and City Assessor Maria Theresa Rosell guilty of Oppression or Grave Abuse of Authority in a related administrative case involving the same reassigned employees.

In that separate September 1 decision, Rama and Rosell were penalized with a one-year suspension — later convertible to a fine — for “acting with cruelty and excessive use of authority” in issuing the reassignment orders.(TGP)