Bacolod pork scam-5

Developments in this first-time pork barrel scam are moving faster than expected. However, the camp of Monico Puentevella who stands accused of misuse of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (pork barrel) is engaged in misleading the people.

The Ombudsman has ordered the filing of the case before the Sandiganbayan last January 8 yet but we knew of it only last week.

Nevertheless, Puentevella’s city administrator, Atty. Rolando Villamor and reportedly also a member of Puentevella’s legal team, has been using the Segovia case in the Supreme Court.

Before I deal with this Segovia case that is being bruited about as the way out for Puentevella, at least in the matter of his suspension, let me ask a serious question that so far nobody has bothered to ask:

Is it legal or ethical for Villamor who is a government employee to defend Puentevella who is facing indictment by the government? Although he was given the permission to continue his practice of law even though he is the city administrator, does that permission allow him to be counsel against the government?

I think it is an unethical practice. If he acts as lawyer in the case involving private persons, then he can practice but not against the government.

Perhaps Integrated Bar of the Philippines Negros Occidental Chapter President Atty. Ike Tabino can check and tell the people of Bacolod that it is all right for Villamor to be part of the legal defense of Puentevella whose case is private and he is accused not in his capacity as mayor of Bacolod but as Monico Puentevella.

Perhaps a lot of problems can be avoided if Villamor reconsiders his being counsel to Puentevella, or if indeed he is not counsel for him. Nevertheless the fact that he seems to be speaking in all matters related to this case (no other lawyer has been mentioned or speaking for Puentevella) indicates that Villamor is his legal counsel.

Anyway, let’s revert to this issue later.

In his defense of Puentevella, Villamor mentioned the Segovia case to bolster the propaganda thrust that  Puentevella will not be suspended even until 2016 and even beyond. The insinuation is that even if the Ombudsman files the case, Puentevella will not be suspended because of the Segovia case.

One of the wonders of modern communication is the internet where we can source information with a few clicks, including the decisions of the Supreme Court.

I got a print-out of that decision (G.R. No. 124067, March 27, 1998.) and after reading it, I think that instead of the SC decision favoring Puentevella, it is a decision that will insure the speedy action of the Sandigan and the issuance of an order for Puentevella’s immediate suspension for 90 days.

It is fortunate that Atty. Joselito Bayatan, one of the complainants has filed an Omnibus Motion with the Ombudsman last January 27 and he made clear a long decision penned by Chief Justice Narciso Narvasa. 

However, for our purposes and to make this matter clearer I will go beyond Atty. Bayatan’s motion. The Segovia case is indeed enlightening and an opportunity for ordinary citizens to learn about the law so that they cannot be misled by half-truths as is happening in this case.

Let’s cite Atty. Bayatan’s reason for filing this motion. He said that after Puentevella received his copy of the denial of his motion for reconsideration, “his City Administrator and also a member of his legal team in his defense, Atty. Rolando Villamor, went into media hype by way of broadcast and print media that his client – City Mayor of Bacolod will not be suspended…”

He also quoted Villamor who said that “the suspension will not happen and the mayor, who granted the bonuses to the employees, will give Christmas bonuses this year and next year, until his term ends.”

Atty. Bayatan told the Ombudsman that this statement can be viewed “by ordinary inferences” that Puentevella will never be suspended until his term ends in June 2016.  

The message that Villamor and Puentevella wants the people of Bacolod to believe is: there is no way he will be suspended. Puentevella even ridiculed and challenged those who believe he would get sacked.

Bayatan, however, said that “Such unwarranted statements made by respondent-accused Puentevella through his lawyer-City Administrator Villamor smacks of hubris characterized by (their) imperious reaction grossly disregarding the prominent jurisprudence “Segovia et al versus Sandiganbayan et al.”

Hubris is derived from the Greek word hybris which means “wanton, insolence, arrogance resulting from excessive pride or from passion.”

Let’s continue tomorrow.*

back to top