The Office of the Ombudsman in the Visayas dismissed the criminal case filed by former Secretary to the Mayor Moises de la Cruz against Bacolod Mayor Monico Puentevella, former City Administrator Rolando Villamor and former City Legal Officer Sarah Villamor.

De La Cruz filed the case for possible violation of Section 3 (a) & (e) of R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against the three officials on August 18, 2014 when Puentevella appointed Rolando Villamor as city administrator and his daughter Sarah, as City Legal Officer after winning the 2013 mayoralty elections.

He also included Puentevella's Memorandum No. 060-10-13A that granted Rolando Villamor's request for authority to engage in private practice.

According to De la Cruz, prior to Rolando Villamor's appointment, he represented Galeno Construction Inc. in a civil case against the City Government of Bacolod entitled, “Galeno Construction Inc. vs. Evelio Leonardia as (former) Mayor of Bacolod and Joselito Bayatan as (former) CLO of Bacolod.”

After Puentevella granted the authority to practice his profession, Rolando Villamor still appeared as counsel for Galeno as evidenced by the Feb. 6, 2014 order of Judge Rosario Ester Orda-Caise of Regional Trial Court Branch 48, he said.

Sarah Villamor said she assigned the case to Cesar Beloria Jr. who attended the hearings of the case. She claimed that she did not sign a single pleading in the case.

Based on his counter-affidavit, Puentevella pointed out that as city mayor, he is allowed to authorize a subordinate to practice his profession as long as the same will not conflict or tend to conflict with the latter's official functions, and that “the issuance of an authority to practice per se is not in violation of any law.”

The resolution pointed out that Puentevella had no knowledge before the grant of authority to practice that Rolando Villamor would appear for the plaintiff (Galeno Construction, Inc.) in a case adverse to the City of Bacolod.

“There is, therefore, no basis for the Office to conclude that he allowed himself to be persuaded, induced or influenced to commit a violation of offense,” the resolution said, adding that it “finds no basis to hail them to court for the commission of a crime” and that de la Cruz “failed to allege any specific act on their part that may be considered a violation of R.A. 3019”.

Earlier, however, the Ombudsman had ordered the suspension of Rolando Villamor for six months and one day without pay after finding him administratively liable in the complaint filed against him by De la Cruz.

The court found him guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service in the case filed against him when he appeared as counsel for Galeno Construction Inc. in a civil case filed against the city government.

Meanwhile, De la Cruz said it is enough and more than satisfactory that the Ombudsman had meted the administrative penalty of suspension for violation of conflict of interest against Rolando Villamor.

Although he has pre-empted his 6-month suspension by his resignation, he cannot, however, escape the equivalent penalty of fine corresponding to his 6-months' salary chargeable against his monetary benefits with the government under the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, he said.

De la Cruz said the criminal liability is not that important because he had already delivered to Rolando Villamor the right message that as a public servant and a lawyer at that, he must observe the proper decorum of ethical standard in both his government service and in his practice of the law profession.

“It is enough for me that I had reminded him of his professional and ethical responsibility and his administrative penalty had set a good example for others similarly inclined not to follow what he did which was a clear case of malpractice,” De la Cruz added.*CGS

back to top