ANGELES CITY – The Commission on Audit here has officially cleared Vice Mayor Ma. Vicenta L. Vega-Cabigting and 12 city councilors of any liability in the 2023 audit observation involving job order (JO) workers arising from a case brought before the Office of the Ombudsman by Pyra Lucas of the United Pilipino Against Crime and Corruption (UPACC).
The COA’s certification, dated March 31, 2025 and signed by audit team leader Amelita Inovero, confirmed that the audit issue had been “closed and exited,” with no disallowances, suspensions, or charges recorded against any of the respondents.
“Finally, the Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) for CY 2023 has already been closed and exited. The COA Auditor, having been satisfied that respondents have already sufficiently complied with the recommendations therein, she then certified that respondents ‘have no recorded disallowances, suspension or charges’ as stated in its CERTIFICATION dated March 31, 2025, attached as ANNEX ‘1’ hereof,” the officials stated in their joint counter-affidavits.
The 12 councilors cleared in the same audit issue are: Crystal Dj Aguas, Crisanto G. Cortez, Joseph Alfie T. Bonifacio, Marino D. Banola, Danilo D. Lacson, Jesus S. Sangil, Edgardo D. Pamintuan Jr., Raco Paolo S. Del Rosario, Arvin M. Suller, Alexander P. Indiongco, Jeremias M. Alejandrino, and Arnoah Prince D. Mandani.
‘Without merit’
Vega-Cabigting and the 12 councilors filed joint counter-affidavits opposing the motion for their preventive suspension.
They maintained that the complaint was “without merit, legally defective, and based on misinterpretation of the audit findings.”
The officials questioned the legal standing of Lucas, asserting she had no proper authority to represent UPACC in filing the complaint.
“No Board Resolution cited in a form of a Secretary’s Certificate has been shown as being passed and approved by the UNITED PILIPINO Against CRIME Inc., the actual complainant herein, that authorized Pyra Lucas to sign, file, and represent the corporation in this complaint,” the counter-affidavit read.
Vega-Cabigting, in her separate filing, emphasized that the absence of proper authorization rendered the complaint “filed not under oath,” thus violating Ombudsman rules requiring verified complaints.
“This lack of authorization to initiate, sign, and file the initiatory complaint renders the complaint as being ‘filed not under oath,’ which violates the rule of the Honorable Office of the Ombudsman that complaint must be under oath and accompanied by a Verification upon its filing,” her affidavit stated.
“Further, to allow the continuation of this complaint filed in the name of a corporation which did not authorize Pyra Lucas to represent it and sign thereon is to countenance the commission of a criminal act of Perjury as the very means that set into motion the processing and the giving of due course of this complaint,” it added.
No basis for claims
The complaint centered on the COA’s AOM that noted the non-appearance of 171 JO workers during verification. Lucas allegedly assumed the JOs were ghost employees and that their wages had been malversed.
However, the counter-affidavits clarified:
“Complainant has based its complaint on the COA’s ‘Audit Observation Memorandum CY 2023’ which cited the non-appearance before the Audit Team of about 171 ‘Job Order’ (JO for short) hired workers in the office of the Sangguniang Panlungsod when called upon for personal verification.
“Complainant then presumes wrongly, because the Audit Observation Memorandum did not conclude such, that the 171 names were fictitious and that their compensation were malversed by respondents.”
The officials added that the JOs were actively deployed in the field performing legitimate, community-based work related to the council’s legislative functions.
“As in fact, Item 15.10 in the ‘Audit Observation Memorandum’ acknowledges that most ‘Job Order’ workers were assigned at the field, as researchers, data gatherers, garbage checkers at the barangays, tree planting workers at the barangays, assisting feeding programs at the fields, and sweepers on call duty,” the affidavit further stated.
Regarding their failure to appear before the auditors, the officials explained:
“However, as presented in the ‘Audit Observation Memorandum’ (AOM for short), initially, some 171 JOs failed to appear on time before the COA Auditor, and this was due to inadequate means of prompt communication inasmuch as most of these JOs were assigned at the field.”
Call to dismiss
The respondents emphasized that no proof exists to support the allegations of criminal or administrative violations. The respondents particularly pointed out that the charge of “conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service” was especially without basis.
The complaint also failed to demonstrate any acts of falsification, misconduct, neglect of duty, or other forms of “notoriously undesirable behavior” as required under existing rules.
In conclusion, the officials prayed for the dismissal of both the criminal and administrative complaints, asserting that the case was without merit and grounded on misrepresentation and baseless assumptions.
The respondents also opposed the motion for preventive suspension, calling it an unnecessary and unjust measure.
Vega-Cabigting and the 12 City Councilors reaffirmed their unwavering commitment to transparency, accountability, and continued service to the people of Angeles City. Team Lazatin
