THE Office of the Ombudsman has suspended 26 regular and job order (JO) workers of the Mandaue City Government for nine months without pay for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service regarding the demolition of structures in Barangay Paknaan.
The ruling stems from a complaint filed by Maria Priscilla and Maritoni Melendres, who alleged that the officials illegally demolished structures on their property without a court order.
Among the senior officials who were suspended were Johnbee Biton, officer in charge of the housing department; Julius Caesar Entice, assistant assessor; and Teodorico Montojo II, head of the Janitorial and Security Services Unit. The remaining 23 are JOs.
The Ombudsman’s decision, issued on July 9, 2024, but only received by the respondents on Feb. 4, 2025, dismissed the more serious allegations of oppression, grave misconduct and violations of the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act (RA) 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, for lack of substantial evidence.
The suspension, however, is immediately executory, even if the respondents file a motion for reconsideration (MR) or appeal the decision. If the penalty can no longer be enforced due to separation from service, it will be converted into a fine equivalent to six months’ salary, deductible from the officials’ retirement benefits, accrued leave credits, or any other receivables.
The case arose from a May 3, 2023, incident where the respondents allegedly padlocked the entrance of the complainants’ fenced property in Barangay Paknaan using an undated “notice to demolish.” The complainants submitted photographs and police blotter certifications to support their claim that they were inside the property when the gates were locked.
In their defense, the respondents denied detaining anyone but admitted to closing two of three property entrances. They argued that the City Government owns the land, which is classified as foreshore land under RA 5519. They cited a 2017 tax declaration showing that the property is under the City’s name.
The Ombudsman found that the “notice to demolish” was addressed to the Office of the Building Official (OBO), not to the respondents, raising questions about their authority to carry out the demolition. The decision also found that the city officials were “not clothed with the authority” to carry out the demolition.
“Respondents were not clothed with any authority in doing the questioned demolition and padlocking,” the decision reads. The ruling emphasized that the respondents failed to verify whether the demolition notice gave them a legal mandate and that their actions tarnished the image and integrity of their respective offices.
Maria Priscila, who received the Ombudsman’s decision, said she was overjoyed to finally achieve justice for their claim to the land, which had been in dispute for years. “It is not easy to be a victim of such severe abuse by the Mandaue government,” said Maria Priscila in Cebuano.
On Monday, Feb. 10, Entice, one of the suspended officials, questioned the Ombudsman’s decision, saying that Hudo (Housing and Urban Development Office), not the OBO, is responsible for demolitions.
“The Ombudsman should have asked if OBO was present during the implementation. OBO does not have a demolition team — only Hudo is authorized to conduct demolition activities,” he said.
He also expressed concern for the suspended JO workers who were only following instructions.
“I would rather that only we (regular employees) be suspended, not the JOs. They were just following orders. They work on a day-to-day basis, and they will have no income for nine months. That’s really depressing,” he said.
The respondents have already filed an MR for the criminal case on Feb. 7 and plan to file another for the administrative case within the week.
They insist that the demolition was legal and authorized by a memorandum from the City Administrator’s Office based on Department of the Interior and Local Government Opinion 16, Series of 2006, which allows mayors to order demolitions without a court order.
“We were caught off guard. The clarificatory hearing focused on arbitrary detention, not on our supposed lack of authority. Had we been asked, we would have explained that we were acting under a valid memorandum,” Entice added.
He also pointed out that the City provided equipment for the demolition, such as bulldozers and welding tools, and that public funds were used, further proving that the operation was authorized.
“If we had no authority, why were we allowed to use government facilities and resources? Why weren’t we charged with usurpation of authority?” he questioned.
Beyond the administrative suspension, several Mandaue City officials and personnel could face criminal charges for violating RA 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
A resolution dated July 19, 2024, issued by Graft Investigator Carl Vincent Sasuman, found probable cause to indict 27 respondents and 24 unidentified individuals for violating Section 3(e) of RA 30192. This provision penalizes public officials for causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence.
However, the Ombudsman dismissed the charge of arbitrary detention under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code due to lack of basis.
The Human Resource Management Office has been directed to implement the suspension and submit a compliance report to the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas within five days.
Despite the legal battle ahead, the suspended officials maintain that they acted lawfully. / CAV