26 Mandaue City workers seek Ombudsman reconsideration

CEBU, Philippines — The 26 officials and job order (JO) employees of Mandaue City who were meted nine months suspension without pay after the Office of the Ombudsman found them administratively guilty of “conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service” have sought reconsideration from the anti-graft office.,

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Maria Priscilla S. Melendres and Maritoni S. Melendres, who accused the officials and employees of unlawfully padlocking and implementing a notice to demolish a disputed property in Barangay Paknaan, Mandaue City, on May 3, 2023.

The complainants filed criminal and administrative cases against Housing and Urban Development Office (HUDO) Head Johnbee Biton, Assistant City Assessor Julius Ceasar Entise, Janitorial and Security Services Unit Head Teodorico Montojo II, Janitorial and Security Services employee Pedrito Inalem, and 22 other City Hall workers.

A resolution obtained by media on February 10, 2025, revealed that the Ombudsman’s decision, signed on December 9, 2024, by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Carl Vincent D. Sasuman, dismissed the charges of Oppression, Grave Misconduct, and violations of the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act No. 6713 due to lack of substantial evidence.

However, the Ombudsman found the respondents liable for "Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service" for allegedly padlocking the complainants’ property without a clear legal mandate.

In an interview on February 11, 2025, Entise explained that two separate motions for reconsideration were filed—one by him as a lawyer and another by a separate counsel representing the other respondents.

“It’s not that we are divided, no we are not, we just want to attack this decision in two angles,” said Entise.

“We would rather attack this in two different angles, hopefully, it will be more convincing to the Ombudsman,” he added.

Entise emphasized that their motion argues against the claim that they were unauthorized to implement the demolition order. He pointed out that the demolition was executed pursuant to a memorandum from the City Administrator’s Office.

“We actually are authorized, and the memorandum issued by the City Administrator’s Office supports that,” Entise asserted.

The Ombudsman had earlier ruled that the City’s directive was not expressly addressed to the respondents’ offices, raising questions about their authority. However, Entise expressed confidence that presenting the memorandum would lead the Ombudsman to reconsider its ruling.

“I trust the institution, and I have full faith in the Ombudsman,” he said.

Entise believes that with the presentation of the memorandum order from the City Administrator’s Office, the anti-graft body will change its decision.

Entise also voiced particular concern for the affected JO employees, noting that their suspension means an immediate loss of income due to the "no work, no pay" policy they follow.

“Ako nagguol ko pero mas nagguol ko sa mga JOs kay no work, no pay na sila,” Entise lamented.

While regular employees would receive back pay if the decision is reversed, JO workers will not, placing them in a more precarious position.

“Mao nay nakasakit sa akong buot. Sakit pamalandungon kay nanrabaho ra ang JOs,” he added, stressing that the JO employees were merely executing their assigned tasks.

Apart from the administrative motion for reconsideration, the respondents had previously filed a motion in their criminal case on February 6, 2025. The Ombudsman had also found probable cause to indict them for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, on July 9, 2024.

Entise and his co-respondents maintain that their actions were carried out in good faith and in the performance of their duties.

“We have no interest in that property, we have nothing to gain, we were just doing our job,” Entise asserted, emphasizing the legal principle of the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty.  FPL (CEBU NEWS)