By NITZ ARANCON, Correspondent IT’S final. The Commission on Audit en banc has ruled with finality and upheld a decision to compel ex-mayor Vicente Emano and 21 other incumbent and former city hall officials to return over P31.5 million in public funds released to a firm that undertook a controversial phone project for rural barangays over a decade ago. But Emano’s lawyer Francis Ku hinted that he would question the COA en banc’s ruling in court. Ordered to make the refund were Vice Mayor Caesar Ian Acenas, former vice mayors John Elizaga+ and Michelle Tagarda-Spiers, former congressman Jose Benjamin Benaldo; Councilors Annie Daba and President Elipe, former councilors Juan Sia, Emmanuel Abejuela, Edgar Cabanlas, Reynaldo Advincula+, Maryanne Enteria, Alfonso Goking, and Ian Mark Nacaya; Former city hall executives Wilma Rugay, Lino Daral, Virginia Plaza, Estrella Sagaral, Jorie Bingona, Edelito Badua, Rodulfo Lumacang, and Isidro Obligado. The officials and former city hall officials were directed to return some P31,544,761.94 which city hall released in tranches to the firm Supplier-Contractor Networking Telecommunications (Scantel) that was contracted to set up a rural telephone system for the city’s outlying villages during the Emano administration. When lawyer Constantino Jaraula took over as mayor with Emano as his vice mayor, the then mayor ordered an investigation into the project’s defects, and directed Scantel to make it functional. The Scantel phone system, supposedly set up in 17 rural barangays of the city, remains unserviceable to this day. The results of the investigation ordered by Jaraula were never made public. In a Notice of Finality of Decision signed by COA secretary Nilda Plaras on Sept. 17, 2014, a copy of which was released to this paper on Tuesday, the Commission directed city hall to withhold the salaries and other benefits intended for the incumbent and former city hall officials unless they paid up. The COA en banc said the payments are to be withheld “in accordance with (a) COA order of execution to be issued to the agency cashier.” On July 8, 2008, state auditor Olivia Flores issued a Notice of Disallowance in connection with the P50-million Telepono sa Barangay project. Flores’s notice was based on the COA’s Dec. 31, 2007 report that raised serious questions on the Scantel project, and the release of some P31.5 million of the P50-million budget for project that started in 2003. Flores’s 2008 notice noted that there were disbursement vouchers despite the non-submission of supporting documents. She noted city hall’s “non -compliance with the fundamental principles of handling financial transactions and operations within reasonable time...” She questioned the approval of Ordinance no. 8751-2003 that authorized the then mayor Emano to enter into a contract with Scantel “without examining/verifying the proper documentation recommended by the BAC [Bids and Awards Committee] prior to approval of aforesaid ordinance.” City hall filed a motion for reconsideration on Dec. 10, 2012, and the Commission dismissed it on Feb. 14, 2014 with finality. COA subsequently issued a notice that sought a refund from Emano, et al.. Atty. Ku, Emano’s lawyer, argued that the COA en banc’s ruling was not final and there was no reason for the former mayor to make a refund. “I’m only talking about my client, Mayor Emano. I’m not lawyering for the other officials,” said Ku who confirmed that the ex-mayor received the 2014 Notice of Finality of Decision from COA in October last year. Ku said, “Nakadawat si Mayor Emano sa notice pero wala man nasulat didto unsay na-final.”  Ku said this prompted him to write to COA on Dec. 15, 2014, and asked for a copy of the final decision. COA, until now, has not replied, he said. “Wala may response ang COA sa akong sulat so tungod niini, alang kanamo, kining Notice of Finality of Decision sa COA dili pa kini final, kay notice palang gani kini,” Ku said. He said he may decide to bring the matter to court the moment he receives an official copy of the document from the Commission. Ku added: “Ang bala-od nag-ingon nga whatever decision subject to be questioned in court, mahimo pa nga magamit ang remedy of judicial review. So kon amo nang madawat ang copy sa decision sa COA, mahimo pa nga ang akong client, mosaka sa korte.”