by Miriam G. Desacada
Ormoc City–The Office of the Ombudsman, in joint resolutions issued on 11 September 2025, dismissed two similar but separately filed cases of graft and corruption, and grave misconduct against former Palompon mayor Ramon C. Oñate and other municipal officials.One of the two dismissed cases was filed by Francisco Y. Dysam Jr., with docket numbers OMB-C-C-OCT-24-0081, a criminal case for violation of Section 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), and OMB-C-A-OCT-24-0094, an administrative case for grave misconduct.
Respondents to the Dysam complaints were Oñate, and other former municipal officials: legal officer Phoebe Charis A. Albaño, municipal engineer John Erwin G. Aquino, vice mayor Ferdinand T. dela Calzada, and Sangguniang Bayan (SB) members—Burt Marie M. Bregaudit, Esperanza L. Sumalinog, Edgar P. Pacaldo, Jonathan T. Yap, Emmanuel M. Laurente, Margarito C. Bensig Jr., Ranulfo O. Gaspan Sr., Consuelo J. Bonghanoy, Rene A. Camposano, and Yvanna Kirstie H. Misagal.
The other dismissed case was filed by Mesias P. Arevalo, with docket numbers OMB-C-C-OCT-24-0102, a criminal case for violating Section 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), and OMB-C-A-OCT-24-0120, an administrative case for grave misconduct.
Respondents to the Arevalo complaints were Oñate, and former municipal officials: legal officer Phoebe Charis A. Albaño, and municipal planning and development officer Christopher Montebon.
Both Dysam and Arevalo, in their respective complaints, accused the respondents of engaging the services of Albaño to defend them in their numerous cases they previously filed, also at the Ombudsman, against Oñate, et al.
Dysam alleged that the respondents engaged the services of co-respondent Albaño to represent them in three cases he earlier filed at the Ombudsman: 1) OMB-V-V-APR-23-0057 (violation of section 3 (e) of RA 3019; 2) OMB-V-C-JAN-23-0014 (for grave misconduct, abuse of authority, and oppression versus Oñate, Aquino, and Fructouso G. Omega); and 3) OMB-V-C-JUN-23-0147 (violation of section 3 (e) of RA3019 against Onate, Aquino, Omega, et al).
Arevalo alleged that the respondents engaged the services of co-respondent Albaño, to represent them (Oñate, et al) in their cases that Arevalo earlier filed at the Ombudsman:
OMB-V-C-JUN-23-0149 (violation of section 3 (e) and (f) of RA 3019); OMB-V-A-JUN-23-0157 (violation of section 3 (e) of RA 3019); and OMB-V-C-JAN-23-0014 (for abuse of authority, dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, misconduct, oppression, and other violations).Both Dysam and Arevalo alleged that Albaño, in representing as counsel for respondents and filed pleadings before the OMB-Visayas, not in her private capacity but as being a municipal legal officer of Palompon, violates section 7 (b) (2) of RA 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
Both Dysam and Arevalo alleged that the respondents to their respective complaints persuaded, induced, and influenced Albaño to represent them in the criminal cases filed before the OMB-Visayas.
They added that the respondents knowingly and consciously utilized the resources of the Palompon LGU for defending themselves, instead of enforcing the law, and ensuring that Albaño complies with the law.Onate, et al, filed their counter-affidavits, first on 13 November 2024, against Dysam’s complaints, and then on 6 December 2024 against Arevalo’s.
In both counteractions, respondents argued that Albaño did not violate section 90 of the Local Government Code, because the prohibition only applies to SB members who are lawyers.
They contended that Albaño is not an SB member, and likewise did not defend the respondents to the complaints, but to defend the acts of the LGU, that the complainants had questioned, such as the issuance of show cause orders, revocation of building permits due to non-compliance of the National Building Code, revocation of the business permit, issuance of the local chief executive (LCE) order directing the complainant to cease and desist, and the implementation of the LCE order.
The Ombudsman ruled in favor of the respondents, and dismissed the complaints by declaring that “there was no probable cause for violating Section 3 (a) of RA 3019,” as respondents “cannot be considered to have conspired with one another to persuade Albaño to violate the law,” in connection with her official duty.
The complainants failed to present proofs that the respondents persuaded or induced Albaño to violate the law, because she defended only the questioned acts of the LGU and not of the respondents.
The Ombudsman ruled that “respondents cannot be considered to have conspired with one another and acted with manifest partiality, evident of bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence when they allegedly engaged the services of Albaño in the cases filed at the OMB-Visayas.”It added.
They contended that Albaño is not an SB member, and likewise did not defend the respondents to the complaints, but to defend the acts of the LGU, that the complainants had questioned, such as the issuance of show cause orders, revocation of building permits due to non-compliance of the National Building Code, revocation of the business permit, issuance of the local chief executive (LCE) order directing the complainant to cease and desist, and the implementation of the LCE order.
The Ombudsman ruled in favor of the respondents, and dismissed the complaints by declaring that “there was no probable cause for violating Section 3 (a) of RA 3019,” as respondents “cannot be considered to have conspired with one another to persuade Albaño to violate the law,” in connection with her official duty.
The complainants failed to present proofs that the respondents persuaded or induced Albaño to violate the law, because she defended only the questioned acts of the LGU and not of the respondents.
The Ombudsman ruled that “respondents cannot be considered to have conspired with one another and acted with manifest partiality, evident of bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence when they allegedly engaged the services of Albaño in the cases filed at the OMB-Visayas.
”It added that section 90 of the LGC applies only to SB members, who are lawyers, and not to Albaño who is the municipal legal officer. On the allegations of grave misconduct, the OMB states: “it is clear that the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant and palpable breach of duty are not manifest in the present case.”It added:
“Respondents cannot be faulted for believing that they acted in good faith when they defended the lawful acts of the municipality … in the absence of proof to the contrary, respondents should be afforded the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties and functions.
”The order of dismissal of criminal and administrative cases against Onate, et al were signed by the Ombudsman special panel of investigators, and approved by acting Ombudsman, and deputy Ombudsman for Visayas Dante F. Vargas.
The special panel of investigators, on the case, were Nellie P. Boguen-Golez, chairperson, Leilani P. Tagulao-Marquez, co-chairperson, and members Michelle V. Villabesa, Renato A. Peralta Jr., and Corinne Joie M. Garillo-Arellano. Copies of the decision were also furnished the DILG Secretary Juanito Victor Remulla, the complainants and each of the respondents, and the media. —-Miriam G. Desacada