Attorney General's Office confirmed to exgerente ESE removal of Carmen de Bolivar (Bolivar)

The Attorney General's Office confirmed the penalty of dismissal and disability for a period of ten years imposed on Mr. Raul Enrique Ramirez Hadechni, in his capacity as manager of the State Social Mount Carmel Hospital in the municipality of Carmen de Bolivar, Bolivar, for the material time.

In Mr. Ramirez was investigated by Hadechni have reconciled out of court on March 27, 2006 with William Kuhlmann Dairo Romero, representative of the former employees Alvaro Gonzalez Morante, Angela Guzman Signs, Moon Naim Siris Peluffo, Adalberto Santos Martinez Martinez and Lilia Gonzalez, payment social benefits, severance and final penalty moratorium for non-timely payment of same.

The deal amounted to the sum of 200 000 000 170 000 770 pesos ($ 200,170,770) and was approved by interlocutory order No. 0568 of May 17, 2006, issued by the Circuit Judge promiscuous El Carmen de Bolívar (Bolívar). "

With this behavior the manager then overreached in their functions because sanctions holidays for 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 were prescribed such as that provided by Law 244 of December 29, 1995, Decree 1848 of November 4, 1969 and Decree 3135 of December 26, 1968, which allowed third parties to increase their wealth.

In resolving the appeal, the Second Deputy Attorney General for Administrative Supervision found that under the existing body of evidence is clear that Raul Enrique Ramirez Hadechni disciplined, as Manager of the State Social Enterprise Mount Carmel Hospital in El Carmen Bolivar, signed and endorsed the Extrajudicial Settlement agreement filed with the Unified Court Circuit Promiscuous El Carmen de Bolivar, which agreed to pay benefits and penalties for non-payment moratoriums timely a final severance, all obligations them which were prescribed.

The proof is in the settlement agreement filed with the court, which appropriated such sums were paid for benefits for the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998, document signed in March 2006, which served to verify that the dates mentioned, far exceeded the statute of limitations set by law, so that gave rise to the payment of monies that should not be.

The Attorney General concluded that the act is clear, no doubt, held objectively a typical description embodied in the Act as an offense, punishable by way of fraud, it depended only on their willingness to sign and endorse the agreement, "acting not dependent on anyone other than the accused, which is who made a conscious, voluntary and that only can be attributed to him, "when it is clear he could act in another sense as taking a reasonable time to further consultation and ensure the legality and origin of the commitment to subscribe.