Republic of the PhiliPPines

(VISAYAS) oFFIGE OF THE OMBUDSMAN M' Velez St'' Guadalupe' 600a Cebu City
Department of Agriculture RO'7 Compound'

MANUEL MEJORADA,
Complainant, -vefsus-

OMB-V-A -12-0102-B

JED PATRICK E. MABILOG' City Mayor, Iloilo City,

Respondent.

x___-

-------x

POSIT]ON PAPER
COMESNowCOMPLAINANTbyhimselfandtothisHonorableofficemost pOSITION pApER in compliance with its order dated June 17, respectfully submits this
20i3 which he received on July 9,2013'

FACTS OF THE CASE

as Respondent Jed Patrick E. Mabilog was elected

vice Mayor of Iloilo city and served the

Mayor of Iloil0 city and served the term from June 30, 2007 toJune 30, 2010. He was elected he served one (1) term as City term from June 30, 2010 to June 30, 2013. Before that, public official, he was required councilor from June 30,20041o June 30,2007. As an elective
and in fact did file, to file a Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) annually

for the years covenng2007,2008, 2009 and 2010'

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

worth as follows:
Assets (Real and Personal) Php 67,166,600.00

Liabilities
Net Worth

22,712,168.40 44,454,432.00

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

follows:

Assets (Real and Personal)

Php 71,106,600.30
19,650,000.00 51,456,600.30

Liubilities'
Net Worth

price of a By his own admission, the amount of P30,000,000.00 indicated as the acquisition He said the house and lot property in Canada in his 2007 SALN was inaccurately reported.
1,.ue

total acquisition cost was p14,500,000.00.2 Taking that correction into consideration, his is how assets and net worth for the year 2007 would be different. Presented below

Assets (Real and Personal)

Php 51,666,600.00
22,772,168.00 28,954,432.44

Liabilities
Net Worth

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 threeyear period:3

Property House in Canada House and lot, Lapaz,Iloilo City Dodge Durango vehicle Lexus vehicle

Year
2007 2008 2008

Acquisition Cost

Php 14,500,000.00
5,000,000.00 600,000.00
1,500,000.00

2009

lnformation was inadvertently missed in Complaint Affidavit due to incomplete document provided by the

SALN Custodian of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas. The figure indicated was provided by respondent himself in his Counter-Affidavit, paragraph 14.

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 financing

2. 3. 4.

for p912,168 for the purpose; this means he paid the balance of Pl,334,056 in cash; His investments in Stocks (Equity Paid) rose to Php 25,200,000.00 in 2008; this figure
was

just PhP 6,000,000'00 in2AA7;

In 2009, his wife remitted to him Php 10,000,000.00 in cash; and

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 Section
8, 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 and

grave misconduct, perjury and other offenses under Republic Acts No.3019 and
6713 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" under Section 8, Republic Act No. 3019. For a public official who reported only gross income

of

Php 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 his salary and other larnfirl income."4

In his Counter Affidavit, respondent made no justification or explanation as to how or where

he 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 other

properties 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 the
accumulation of wealth by public officials and employees, and exposing comrption.

As enunciated by the Supreme Court, "Section 8 above, speaks of unlawful acquisition

of

wealth, the evil sought to be suppressed and avoided, and Section 7, which mandates full disclosure of wealth in the SALN, is a means of preventing said evil and is aimed particularly
at curtailing and minimizing, the opporhrnities for

official comrption and maintaining

standard 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 are
mandated to file, are the means to achieve the policy of accountability of all public officers and employees

in the govemment. By

the SALN, the public are able to monitor movemeRt

in the fortune of a public official; it is a valid check and balance mechanism to verify
undisclosed properties and wealth."5 The fact that respondent Mabilog listed the properties he acquired during his incumbency
does 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 or employee constitute only one part of the SALN; the other part involves showing that the

acquisition of the sarne came from legitimate income. In this case, respondent's own testimony and evidence prove that "his wealth has become manifestly disproportionate to his
income or other sources of income, and he failed to properly account or expiain his other
sources of income."6 Respondent Mabilog failed to refute the prima facie existence of "unexplained wealth" under

Section 2, Republic Act No. 1379, which states: "Whenever any public officer or employee
has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out

of

proportion to his salary as such public offlrcer or employee and to his other lawful income and
Section 8, Republic Act No. 30i.9 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-Co v. Barbers,353 Phil. 160 (1998)
a

Atty. Salu*bides v. office of the ombudsman, 6.R. No. 1809 17, April23, ZOlO;office of

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 constitutionallyenshrined 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 duties

of 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 or

properly 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 or

integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness.l0

Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 provides that it is the "obligation" of an employee to

submit 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, and

in so doing, also committed perjury and grave misconduct. By his failure to disclose
7

Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, supra note 29, at 607.

'tbid 6 'Alfonsov.Officeof thePresident,G.R.No.150091, April2,2OO7,52OSCRA64,87,citingCivilService

Commission 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 address
at No. 2 Kasoy St.,

Villa

San Lorenzo Subd.,

Lapaz,Iloilo City, Philippines, after having been

duly 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 own knowledge and information and
based on authentic documents in my possession;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto

City, Philippines.

set my hand

this 19th day of July, 2013 at Iloilo

-M*JoRADA
The affiant whose name and personal circumstances are stated above-personally appeared before me this 19th day of July, 20!3, in the City of Iloilo presented the foregoing verification signed the same in my presence and affrrmed under oath to the correctness of the contents or allegations of the same. The affiant is personally known to me and he exhibited to me his Philippine Passport No. EB 3064618 issued on July 16,2011 in Iloilo City, Philippines.

erkffiffi,*u (*,-,.I?J*YN|W?,",,,
$lOT. CC[4N4. REG.

Doc. No.

Page No. f? Book No. Uf

//'0Q

l*P No. 0"i825 (Lifetime). lloilo lollof Aitorney's No. 38100 pTR NO. .l406518: 1/9/ 13. Sto. Borboro. lloilo 4CLE Comp. No. lV-0010808,12121 112
.

NO.46until DEC.3l.20l4

; ;
:

Series of 2013.