Ombudsman fines Negros mayor, 2 others over permit denial

By Dolly Yasa

BACOLOD CITY — The Office of the Ombudsman has ordered a Negros Occidental mayor and two local government officials to pay a fine equivalent to six months’ salary for the delayed issuance and eventual denial of a business permit.

In a decision, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Abegail Marie Cinco said there was substantial evidence to hold Moises Padilla Mayor Ella Garcia Yulo, Registrar Archie Montelibano, and Business Permit and Licensing Office officer-in-charge Warren Jocson liable for violating Section 21(e) of Republic Act 11032, which amended RA 9485, or the Anti-Red Tape Act.

Each was fined an amount equivalent to six months of their salaries, payable to the Office of the Ombudsman, which may be deducted from their retirement benefits, accrued leave credits, or other receivables.

The complaint was filed by Ramon Nalagon Villaflor, who accused the three officials of grave abuse of authority and neglect of duty.

Garcia Yulo told reporters on Thursday that they will file a motion for reconsideration with the Ombudsman.

She declined to discuss the case further, saying, “This is one of the challenges we face in public service.”

“We cannot please everybody, and there may indeed be complaints, but this will not weaken us in our commitment to serve for the good of the many,” she added.

According to Ombudsman records, the complainant owns Luz Agustin Nalagon Memorial Homes (Nalagon MH), which offers funeral services in Moises Padilla and nearby towns.

In 2002, the complainant secured a mayor’s permit and business license from the municipality after complying with all requirements—during a time when her relative was a political ally of the incumbent mayor.

In January 2023, she applied to renew her business permit, again complying with all requirements.

However, the application was left unacted upon for more than four months.

On June 14, 2023, she sent a follow-up letter to Mayor Yulo, reiterating that despite full compliance and payment of fees, her business permit for 2023 had still not been issued.

On June 26, 2023, Jocson issued a notice denying the application, citing that two businesses—Nalagon MH and Leaño Memorial Homes (Leaño MH), owned by the complainant’s sister—were applying for permits at the same location, offering the same services.

The complainant, however, said the matter had already been settled at the barangay level.

A formal agreement executed between the two sisters allowed the complainant to manage the family funeral business under the new name Nalagon MH from March 16, 2021, to March 16, 2024.

Leaño MH had already ceased operations following the settlement.

This arrangement was common knowledge in the municipality and did not hinder the issuance of permits in the past two years, according to the complainant.

On July 3, 2023, the complainant again wrote to Yulo, Jocson, and Municipal Treasurer Marilou Trespeces.

She noted that Leaño MH lacked a required barangay clearance, which had been revoked on January 23, 2023, while Nalagon MH met all requirements and paid the necessary fees.

In a July 13, 2023 letter, Montelibano reiterated that a business permit could not be issued due to the duplication of businesses at the same address.

However, the complainant noted that her use of the same business address had never been an issue until her relative, a political ally of the mayor, withdrew support.

The complainant was identified as a supporter of her relative, which she claimed was the real reason behind the delay and eventual denial of her permit.

The issue for resolution was whether the respondents, by delaying and ultimately denying the application based on a claim of duplication—even after months of inaction—should be held administratively liable.

The Ombudsman found substantial evidence against Yulo, Jocson, and Montelibano for violating the prescribed timelines under RA 11032, which mandates government offices to act on simple transactions within three working days and on complex ones within seven.

In this case, the complainant’s application was filed in January 2023 but denied only in June—five months later.

The decision emphasized that in administrative cases, the focus is not on the technical designation of the offense but on the substance of the complaint.

Although Villaflor charged them with grave abuse of authority and neglect of duty, the Ombudsman found evidence of their failure to act within the legally mandated processing time and their failure to fully explain the grounds for denial in their response letters.

The ruling noted that administrative charges do not require the same level of precision as criminal cases, as long as the accused are made aware of the allegations and given due process.