Mabilog gets second dismissal order
AFTER DISMISSED AS MAYOR
ILOILO CITY — More than two months after being dismissed as mayor of Iloilo City, Jed Patrick Mabilog got another dismissal order from the Office of the Ombudsman, this time for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The Ombudsman dismissal order also carries the accessory penalties of disqualification from holding public office, cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and bar from taking the civil service examinations.
The case started when Mabilog signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the city government and 3L Towing Services for the implementation of the city’s clamping ordinance approved on April 8, 2014. It was on February 2015 when the City Council approved a resolution authorizing Mabilog to sign that MOA.
Under the agreement, 3L will provide clamping services in exchange for 70 percent share from fines in the first five years of the joint venture. Then the sharing scheme would be modified in the next five years with 3L getting 65 percent of the fines.
However, days later after the MOA signing, Mabilog withdrew his signature saying 3L Towing’s offer must undergo competitive bidding under government procurement rules.
On May 19, 2015, 3L proprietress Leny Garcia wrote Mabilog and offered to withdraw from the MOA “amidst the legal issues confronting it and submit to legal processes prescribed by laws on government bidding and procurement.”
Councilor Plaridel Nava II, chairman of the City Council’s transportation committee, filed the case against Mabilog in 2015 at the height of their publicized bickering. On September 2017, the Ombudsman ordered the filing of a graft charge against Mabilog for violation of Section 3(h) of Republic Act 3019 for the anomalous towing deal.
In his complaint, Nava, also a lawyer, alleged that Mabilog was the ‘brains’ and part owner of 3L Towing Services. He said Mabilog allegedly bankrolled 3L Towing to gain control of the city's tire clamping contract. Nava's accusation boosted a separate graft raps filed by former Iloilo provincial administrator Manuel Mejorada accusing Mabilog for entering an agreement with 3L Towing without going through necessary government procurement laws.
Nava noted that 3L Towing only came to light following the approval of the ordinance. He claimed to have told the mayor to buy wheel clamps since the ordinance was not enforced because of Transportation Management and Traffic Regulation Office (TMTRO)'s lack of wheel clamps. But Mabilog had apparently other plans.
Nava said Mabilog allegedly wanted to create a private complaint that would take care of the city's clamping and towing services. Mabilog then asked Nava to look for a trusted person that could serve as the company's dummy. Nava claimed to have approached Garcia, their common friend, to take on the role as dummy. But Garcia declined because she allegedly wanted to be a part of the company instead.
Mabilog allegedly shelled out P500,000 for the company while Garcia gave out P100,000 as initial capital. Two more persons also invested bringing the initial capitalization to P1 million. The Ombudsman decision also stated that Mabilog reportedly expedited the release of the business and mayor’s permits of the towing company.
It added, “it is undisputed that respondent entered into a MOA, on behalf of the city government with 3L for the implementation of the city’s clamping ordinance without compliance with any procurement process required under the relevant law for the selection of 3L.”
Nava also admitted that Mejorada's complaint questioning the tire clamping deal had incited Mabilog's apprehension that later prompted Garcia to back out from the agreement. Aside from the joint venture with 3L Towing mess, Nava earlier "exposed" the alleged irregularities in the purchase of six tire clamps worth P144,000 in 2012. He claimed that the winning bidder is related to one of Mabilog's trusted aides.
This is now the second dismissal order that the Ombudsman had imposed on Mabilog. On October 26 last year, Mabilog's lawyers confirmed the Ombudsman order for his dismissal for serious dishonesty over his alleged unexplained wealth.
A few days later, or on November 3, the Court of Appeals upheld this order of dismissal. In a four-page resolution, the CA's Special First Division junked Mabilog’s plea to reverse the Ombudsman's order, noting that Mabilog should have based his petition on Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which allows an appellant to question a ruling by the Office of the Ombudsman.