The Bacolod Sangguniang Panlungsod concurred in the appointment of Ed Ravena as City Accountant during their regular session yesterday.

Only Councilor Catalino Alisbo manifested objection, citing that Ravena is not qualified for the position since the law requires five years experience, but what was indicated in his personal data sheet was only three years.

Alisbo said a three-year-experience is only required of a town or municipal accountant. However, most of the councilors believe Ravena has sufficient experience to handle the position having been employed as accountant of the Philippine National Bank and Land Bank of the Philippines before he joined the government.

Ravena was Accountant IV of Bacolod City in Feb. 20, 2001 and became acting Accountant on Mar. 21, 2005 . He was appointed by Mayor Evelio Leonardia as City Accountant on Dec. 10, 2007.

Meanwhile, in response to the query of Councilor Reynold Iledan, chairman of the Committee on Human Resource, City Legal Officer Allan Zamora said there is no merit to the issues raised by former City Accountant Pioquito Quiñones that could bar the concurrence by the SP in the appointment of Ravena as the duly appointed City Accountant.

Quiñones wrote the SP on Dec. 27, 2007 questioning the appointment of Ravena as City Accountant, and on Dec. 28, 2007, he charged Ravena with committing perjury for failure to divulge the pendency of administrative cases filed against him before the Office of the Ombudsman.

Zamora said Quiñones was Accountant of Bacolod until he was dismissed from service by the Mayor in his Decision dated Mar. 9, 2006 , a copy of which was furnished the Civil Service Commission. Based on the records of the CSC, no appeal was ever filed by Quiñones rendering the decision final and executory, he said.

With the dismissal of Quiñones, the position of City Accountant was vacated, Zamora said, adding that there can be a new appointee to the position of City Accountant. Hence, the appointment of Ravena was legal, he said.

On the other issue raised by Quiñones regarding the pendency of administrative cases against Ravena, he said, Section 34 of CSC Resolution 991936, states that “pendency of an administrative case shall not disqualify respondent from promotion of from claiming maternity/paternity benefits.”

As to whether Ravena committed perjury when he declared in his personal data sheet that he was not formally charged despite the pendency of administrative cases before the Ombudsman, Zamora said, it is a matter to be decided by the proper court.

Zamora said that, in all the pending cases, Ravena was impleaded, not because of personal commission of graft and corruption, but as incidental to the performance of his official functions.

He suggested that Ravena may be made to rectify his answer and allow him to explain why he answered “no” in his PDS when asked if he has been formally charged. It may be shown that he did not deliberately hide the pendency of the cases, he said.

Zamora said Ravena may have honestly misinterpreted “formally charged” as having gone to trial, and that, by sheer inadvertence, he had answered No, he said.*CGS

back to top