Republic of the PhiliPPines

oFFIGE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS)Department of Agriculture RO'7 Compound' M' Velez St'' Guadalupe'

600a Cebu City

MANUEL MEJORADA,Complainant,

-vefsus-

JED PATRICK E. MABILOG'City Mayor,Iloilo City,Respondent.x___- -------x

OMB-V-A -12-0102-B

POSIT]ON PAPERCOMESNowCOMPLAINANTbyhimselfandtothisHonorableofficemost

respectfully submits this pOSITION pApER in compliance with its order dated June 17,

20i3 which he received on July 9,2013'

FACTS OF THE CASE

Respondent Jed Patrick E. Mabilog was elected as vice Mayor of Iloilo city and served the

term from June 30, 2007 toJune 30, 2010. He was elected Mayor of Iloil0 city and served the

term from June 30, 2010 to June 30, 2013. Before that, he served one (1) term as City

councilor from June 30,20041o June 30,2007. As an elective public official, he was required

to file a Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) annually and in fact did file,

for the years covenng2007,2008, 2009 and 2010'

For the year Z00T,respondent Mabilog disclosed the totals of his assets, liabilities and net

worth as follows:

Assets (Real and Personal) Php 67,166,600.00

Liabilities 22,712,168.40

44,454,432.00Net Worth

Assets (Real and Personal) Php 71,106,600.30

Liubilities' 19,650,000.00

Net Worth 51,456,600.30

For the year 2010, respondent Mabilog reported that his assets, liabilities and net worth were

as follows:

By his own admission, the amount of P30,000,000.00 indicated as the acquisition price of a

house and lot property in Canada in his 2007 SALN was inaccurately reported. He said the

1,.ue acquisition cost was p14,500,000.00.2 Taking that correction into consideration, his total

assets and net worth for the year 2007 would be different. Presented below is how

Based on the above corrected figures in the 20A7 and2010 SALNs of respondent, the

difference which represents the increase in his Net Worth over a three-year period is Php

22,502,168.30.

By any standard, such amount is a huge increase in the Net Worth of a public official,

especially so that in his SALN for the years 2008 and 2009, respondent reported only income

in the amounts of Php 353,688.00 and Php 394,162.0A. Nothing more, nothing less.

Respondent candidly admitted that he purchased real properties and vehicles during this three-

year period:3

1 lnformation was inadvertently missed in Complaint Affidavit due to incomplete document provided by theSALN Custodian of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas. The figure indicated was provided by respondenthimself in his Counter-Affidavit, paragraph 14.

Assets (Real and Personal) Php 51,666,600.00

Liabilities 22,772,168.00

Net Worth 28,954,432.44

Property Year Acquisition Cost

House in Canada 2007 Php 14,500,000.00

House and lot, Lapaz,Iloilo City 2008 5,000,000.00

Dodge Durango vehicle 2008 600,000.00

Lexus vehicle 2009 1,500,000.00

In his Counter-Affidavit, respondent Mabilog made no mention about the sources of income

from which he was able to acquire such properties and money. He did not offer any

explanation about how his Net Worth grew by P22,502,168.30 on the salary of a City Vice

Mayor and City Mayor between 2007 and 2010'

Respondent's Counter-Affidavit and his annexes (SALNs for 2007,2008, 2009 and 2010)also established the following facts:

1. Respondent acquired a Toyota Camry for P2,246,224 and obtained a credit financingfor p912,168 for the purpose; this means he paid the balance of Pl,334,056 in cash;

2. His investments in Stocks (Equity Paid) rose to Php 25,200,000.00 in 2008; this figurewas just PhP 6,000,000'00 in2AA7;

3. In 2009, his wife remitted to him Php 10,000,000.00 in cash; and4. Hehadcashinbankof Php 1,273,1?9.00attheendof theyearendingDecember3l,

2010.

At no instance in his Counter Affidavit did respondent Mabilog reveal or explain the source of

his income to be able to afford the acquisition of such wealth'

1. Whether or not respondent Jed Patrick E" Mabitog is guilty of violating Section8, Republic Act No. 3019 in amassing wealth that is manifestly out of proportion

to his salary and other lawful incomel

2. Whether or not respondent Jed Patrick E. Mabilog is guilty of dishonesty andgrave misconduct, perjury and other offenses under Republic Acts No.3019 and6713 for his failure to disclose his true income and its sources for the years 2007,

2008 and 2009 as shown in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth(SALN) for the aforesaid years.

DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENT

RESPONDENT MABILOG IS GUILTY OF "UNEXPLAINED WEALTH'.

It is crystal-clear that the difference between the Net Worth of respondent Mabilog in his

2007 SALN and 2010 SALN squarely fits the definition of "unexplained wealth" underSection 8, Republic Act No. 3019. For a public official who reported only gross income ofPhp 353,688.00 and Php 394,162.00 for the years 2008 and 2009, and P8,400,000.00 for the

year 2010, an increase of P22.5 million in Net Worth is "manifestly out of proportion to hissalary and other larnfirl income."4

In his Counter Affidavit, respondent made no justification or explanation as to how or wherehe obtained the money to amass such fabulous wealth. In fact, respondent's own Counter

Affidavit strengthens this complaint because he provided the missing details on otherproperties that he had acquired for the years 2008 and 2009.

This is a classic case of how the SALN can be an effective tool in monitoring theaccumulation of wealth by public officials and employees, and exposing comrption.

As enunciated by the Supreme Court, "Section 8 above, speaks of unlawful acquisition ofwealth, the evil sought to be suppressed and avoided, and Section 7, which mandates fulldisclosure of wealth in the SALN, is a means of preventing said evil and is aimed particularlyat curtailing and minimizing, the opporhrnities for official comrption and maintaining astandard of honesty in the public service. 'Unexplained' matter normally results from 'non-disclosure' or concealment of vital facts. SALN, which all public officials and employees aremandated to file, are the means to achieve the policy of accountability of all public officersand employees in the govemment. By the SALN, the public are able to monitor movemeRtin the fortune of a public official; it is a valid check and balance mechanism to verifyundisclosed properties and wealth."5

The fact that respondent Mabilog listed the properties he acquired during his incumbencydoes not absolve him from culpability in violating Section 8, Republic Act No. 3019.Disclosure of the facts about the properties acquired and owned by a public offrcial oremployee constitute only one part of the SALN; the other part involves showing that theacquisition of the sarne came from legitimate income. In this case, respondent's owntestimony and evidence prove that "his wealth has become manifestly disproportionate to hisincome or other sources of income, and he failed to properly account or expiain his othersources of income."6

Respondent Mabilog failed to refute the prima facie existence of "unexplained wealth" underSection 2, Republic Act No. 1379, which states: "Whenever any public officer or employeehas acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out ofproportion to his salary as such public offlrcer or employee and to his other lawful income and

a Section 8, Republic Act No. 30i.9t Ombrdsm"n v. Valeroso, G.R. No. 767828,2 April 2OO7,SIOSCRA 140, 147; Garciav. Mojica, 372 phil. g92,906 (1999), citing Nera v. Garcia, 106 Phil. 1031 (1960); Lastimosa v. Vasquez, 313 phil. 358 (1995); Castillo-Cov. Barbers,353 Phil. 160 (1998)t Atty. Salu*bides v. office of the ombudsman, 6.R. No. 1809 17, April23, ZOlO;office of the ombudsman

the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie

to have been unlawfully acquired."

Hence, the guilt of respondent Mabilog cannot be doubted. He violated Section 8 of Republic

Act No. 3019 and grounds exist for this Honorable Office to initiate a preliminary

investigation for the forfeiture of respondent's unexplained wealth in accordance with

Republic Act No. 1379.

RESPONDENT MABILOG IS GUILTY OF DISHONESTY, PERJURY AND GRAVE

MISCONDUCT

A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity. The

Constitution stresses that apublic office is a public trust and public officers must at all times

be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and

efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. These constitutionally-enshrined principles, oft-repeated in our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or

idealistic sentiments. They should be taken as working standards by all in the public service.T

When a public officer takes an oath of office, he binds himself to faithfully perform the dutiesof his office and use reasonable skill and diligence, and to act primarily for the benefit of the

public. For amassing wealth that is manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful

income, and failing to properly account or explain where he got the money for the same,

respondent is liable for Dishonesty.8 Likewise, he is liable for perjury and grave misconduct.

Respondent Mabilog committed dishonesty when he failed to report his other income orproperly explain where he got the money that led to the sudden rise in his wealth. Dishonesty

is defined as the concealment or distorlion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's office

or connected with the performance of his doty.'It is understood to imply the disposition to lie,cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustwofihiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity orintegrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness.l0

Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 provides that it is the "obligation" of an employee tosubmit a sworn statement, as the "public has a right to know" the employee's assets, liabilities,net worth and fmancial and business interests. Respondent Mabilog reneged on that duty, andin so doing, also committed perjury and grave misconduct. By his failure to disclose7 Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, supra note 29, at 607.'tbid 6'Alfonsov.Officeof thePresident,G.R.No.150091, April2,2OO7,52OSCRA64,87,citingCivilServiceCommission v. Cayobit, 457 Phil. 452,460 (2003).

information on his income that enabled him to acquire millions of pesos worth of properties,

both real and personal, respondent withheld vital information in violation of his oath.

In Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma,ll the Supreme Court defined misconduct as "a

transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful

behavior or gross negligence by a public officer." The Supreme Court fuither stated that

misconduct becomes grave if it "involves any of the additional elements of comrption, willful

intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by

substantial evidence."

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that this position paper be

included in the records of the herein case, and after evaluation, for this Honorable Office

render a finding of guilty against respondent.

Complainant prays for other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Iloilo City for Cebu City, Philippines, July 19, 2013.

VERIFICATION

I, MANUEL P. MEJORADA, of legal age, married, Filipino citizen and with addressat No. 2 Kasoy St., Villa San Lorenzo Subd., Lapaz,Iloilo City, Philippines, after having beenduly sworn to in accordance with law hereby depose and state:

That I am the Complainant in the above-entitled case; that I caused the foregoing

Position Paper to be prepared; that I have read and understood the same and that all the

" G.R. No. L54521,, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 589, 603, citing Bureau of lnternal Revenue v. Organo, G.R.No. 149549, February 26,?OO4,424 SCRA 9, and Castelo v. Florendo, A.M. No. P-96-LL79, October 10, 2003,413 SCRA 219.

allegations stated therein are true and correct of my

based on authentic documents in my possession;

own knowledge and information and

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,City, Philippines.

I have hereunto set my hand this 19th day of July, 2013 at Iloilo

-M*JoRADA

The affiant whose name and personal circumstances are stated above-personallyappeared before me this 19th day of July, 20!3, in the City of Iloilo presented the foregoingverification signed the same in my presence and affrrmed under oath to the correctness of thecontents or allegations of the same.

The affiant is personally known to me and he exhibited to me his Philippine PassportNo. EB 3064618 issued on July 16,2011 in Iloilo City, Philippines.

erkffiffi,*u(*,-,.I?J*YN|W?,",,,$lOT. CC[4N4. REG. NO.46until DEC.3l.20l4l*P No. 0"i825 (Lifetime). lloilolollof Aitorney's No. 38100 .pTR NO. .l406518: 1/9/ 13. Sto. Borboro. lloilo4CLE Comp. No. lV-0010808,12121 112Doc. No. //'0Q ;

Page No. f? ;Book No. Uf :Series of 2013.