Ombudsman wins graft case filed vs labor arbiter

The Office of the Ombudsman has won the graft case filed against a labor arbiter after the Sandiganbayan found him guilty of violating Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Associate Justice Teresita Diaz-Baldoz, in a 19-page decision and concurred in by Associate Justices Napoleon Inoturan and Oscar Herrera Jr., the anti-graft court’s Second Division sentenced Ricardo Barrios Jr., labor arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), assigned to Cebu City, to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six years to nine years.

The anti-graft court imposed on Barrios the additional penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office and also ordered him to pay Eduardo Abella the amount of P25,000.

The case against Barrios arose when he modified a Court of Appeals (CA) resolution (Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corp. vs NLRC and Eduardo Abella), which had become final and executory.
The CA decision granted Abella separation pay, back wages, back-leave benefits, back-13th month pay and other back allowances and bonuses, in the total amount of more than P1.4 million.

In Barrios’ order dated Dec. 9, 2005, PT&T was directed to pay Abella only separation pay in the amount of P113,000.

Abella filed a complaint-affidavit against Barrios before the Office of the Ombudsman for corrupt practices by depriving him of the other benefits due him.

During trial, Abella testified that Barrios asked him how much was his if the award is raised from P1,060,000 to P1, 326,000.

When he told Barrios that he could only afford P20, 000, the latter said it was “gamay” or small.

Hence, Abella increased the amount to P30,000. On his way out of the room, Barrios asked him if he had some cash with him because he needed it very badly.

Abella gave Barrios P1,500 and left the room. After a few days, the writ of execution was already issued for the bigger amount of more than P1.4 million.

In its decision, the anti-graft court stated that a decision that has attained finality becomes the law of the case regardless of any claim that is erroneous, and that the writ of execution must conform to the judgment to be executed and adhere strictly to the very essential particulars.

The court found that Barrios’ criminal liability “has been sufficiently established, not because the accused failed to adduce evidence in his behalf, but because the evidence presented by the prosecution is strong enough to overcome the presumption of his innocence. -Arlie O. Calalo, Daily Tribune