Acting Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro has ordered the suspension of Hinobaan Mayor Ma. Teresa Bilbao and the town’s municipal administrator Jose Candulizas for two months and one day for simple dishonesty.

Bilbao yesterday maintained that they did not commit any wrongdoing and have filed a motion for reconsideration before  the Ombudsman.

She also pointed out that since she was reelected as mayor of Hinoba-an in 2010 after the complaint had been filed against her, she cannot be suspended under the Aguinaldo doctrine.

The Aguinaldo doctrine exonerates re-elected officials of administrative liabilities and penalties.

The Ombudsman’s decision stemmed from a complaint filed by Hinoba-an Councilor Evelyn de los Reyes who claimed that the Ford Everest owned by the town government that figured in an accident on July 16, 2008 in Silay City was actually used for a private purpose.

Bilbao’s brother-in-law, Rafael Ernesto Bilbao, used the vehicle to transport his fighting cocks to the airport in Silay on July 16, 2008, the complainant claimed.

To cover the unlawful use of the vehicle, it was alleged that Bilbao, with the active participation of Candulizas, issued a travel order authorizing the municipal driver to drive the vehicle to Silay City supposedly to deliver financial assistance to the bereaved family of the municipality’s chief mechanic whose father had died.

The acting mayor of Hinobaan, on the date of the accident, was Rey Ronald Cabalde since Bilbao was on official travel, the complainant said.

The respondents allegedly made it appear that the accident took place on July 19, 2008 because, by that time, Bilbao had assumed her post as mayor and could already issue the required travel order, the complainant added.

Concealing the true date of the accident is plain in simple dishonesty, the Ombudsman’s decision noted.

The Ombudsman, however, noted that the dishonest act did not cause damage or prejudice to the government since the vehicle was covered by insurance.

Bilbao yesterday said it was pointed out in their motion for reconsideration that the mistake in the date was not done intentionally and had in fact been corrected.

She maintained that no dishonesty had been committed.*CPG

back to top