MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman on Friday has ordered the preventive suspension without pay of five Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engineers in Bulacan over alleged falsification of documents involving three flood control projects worth P188.9 million in Baliuag.
The five engineers — Irene D. Ontingco, Kevin A. Geronimo, John Michael E. Ramos, Bernardo P. Villafuerte and Michelle C. Cruz — will remain suspended for up to six months while administrative cases against them are being investigated.
They face charges of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and gross neglect of duty over the 2024 projects involving the construction of reinforced concrete slope revetments in Barangays Piel, San Roque and Sulivan.
The Ombudsman’s investigation stemmed from allegations that the engineers falsified documents covering project implementation, inspection, acceptance, billing and payment to make it appear that contractual and legal requirements had been met.
“To facilitate the implementation of the contracts and the disbursement of public funds, complainant maintains that respondents falsified documents relating to contract implementation, inspection, acceptance, billing and payment to create the false impression that the contractual and legal prerequisites had been satisfied,” the Ombudsman’s order read.
Investigators also alleged that project documents were manipulated to facilitate the award of the contracts to a joint venture that supposedly failed to comply with applicable laws and regulations.
The Ombudsman said the allegations were supported by strong evidence at this stage and that allowing the engineers to remain in office could jeopardize the investigation because they might access or tamper with relevant records.
The three projects had a combined contract value of P188,891,898.23.
Other respondents in the administrative complaint include former Bulacan First District engineering officials and personnel who have since left government service, been detained or retired. Their preventive suspension was deemed moot.
Two Commission on Audit auditors named as co-respondents were not suspended because the Ombudsman found no indication that their continued presence in office could lead to evidence tampering or obstruct the investigation.
The respondents also face separate criminal complaints before the Ombudsman.
