Reelectionist Leo Mendoza insisted on Sunday, May 11, 2025, that he remains the local chief executive of San Andres despite an alleged Ombudsman resolution dismissing him from office due to an administrative case filed by a businessman last year.
In an official statement, Mendoza admitted having received a document last Monday, May 7, 2025. from the Ombudsman dated Dec. 10, 2024 containing a decision on the case against him.
He said that both the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) have no copy of the Ombudsman document, which he said needs to be verified with the graft court.
The Tribune confirmed with the DILG provincial office and its municipal office in San Andres that they were not furnished copies of the alleged decision.
“If this is true, the decision is subject to legal processes including the filing of a motion for reconsideration or an appeal with the Court of Appeals,” the mayor bared.
He branded the move as colored with politics due to the timing of its release just five days before the May 12, 2025 national and local elections.
Likewise, the lawyer-politician underscored, there is a ban against any action against public officials during the election period under Article XXII on Election Offenses.’
Section 261 (x) of the Omnibus Election Code prohibits the suspension or removal of any elective LGU official during the election period without prior approval of COMELEC, “unless said suspension will be for purposes of applying the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in relation to the suspension and removal of elective officials.”
Mendoza also scored as a desperate move of his political rivals the report being circulated that he has been disqualified as a candidate for mayor in San Andres.
He said the issue did not affect his candidacy and that he continues to be the municipal mayor of the town.
Last Sunday, Vice Mayor Gregorio Salvador reportedly assumed office as chief executive pn the basis of the Ombudsman decision ousting Mendoza over administrative charges filed by a cockpit operator in 2024.
Also sworn in at Salvador’s Palawig residence last Sunday, May 11, 2025, by Puting Baybay barangay captain Joan Clavo was Councilor Rommel Antonio, who took his oath as the new vice mayor.
In a statement to local media, Salvador sought the support of his constituents in running the local government in compliance with law.
He said he would focus on restructuring the LGU, particularly with regards to contractual employees, to make sure that their qualifications and experience are fit for the job that they are performing and thus ensure public funds are utilized to the fullest.
He subsequently informed concerned LGU officials as well as Punong Barangays of his assumption of the duties and responsibilities of the local chief executive to prevent a leadership vacuum and to ensure the continuous delivery of public service.
The case against Mayor Mendoza stemmed from the administrative case filed by businessman and cockpit owner Salvador Arcilla Jr. in September 2024 through counsel Atty. Susan Ordinario and docketed as OMB-L-A-APR-24-0060.
The Office of the Ombudsman rendered its decision on December 10, 2024 and was subsequently approved on May 2, 2025, with three copies of the ruling served on Mayor Mendoza, as well as the Human Resource Management Officer and the Municipal Accountant on May 7.
Atty. Mendoza, who is running for a second term, was found administratively liable for Gross Neglect of Duty, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and violation of Section 21(c) of Republic Act 9485 as amended by RA 11032.
He was meted the penalty of dismissal from service, including the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from public office and barred from taking civil service examinations pursuant to Rule 10, Section 50 (A) in relation to Section 57 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS) and Section 10, Rule III, of Administrative Order No. 07, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, in relation to Section 25 of Republic Act 6770.
The ruling stated that Gross Neglect of Duty is punishable by dismissal from the service, with the other two – Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense and violation of Section 21(c) of RA 9485 as amended by RA 11032 punishable by suspension of six months for the first offense – considered as aggravating circumstances.
“In view thereof, the penalty of dismissal from the service under Rule 10, Section 50 A (2) of the 2017 RACCS is warranted,” the Ombudsman stressed.
The Ombudsman dismissed other charges filed against the lawyer-politician as well as the complainant’s claim for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for lack of jurisdiction.
It said such claims are in the nature of a civil action for damages, which action is under the jurisdiction of the regular courts and not the Ombudsman’s.
The complaint was filed by Arcilla, the owner of St. Bede’s Cockpit (SBC) which is registered with the Philippine Gamefowl Commission (PGC) in 1990 and franchised by the Sangguniang Bayan of San Andres to operate in barangay Comagaycay since the same year, with a renewal granted in 2022.
The cockpit was erected on a portion of Lot 2618-B owned by the complainant, with a bigger portion of the lot subsequently acquired by Mendoza’s parents.
In 2017, Arcilla began constructing a new cockpit in Lot 2616 adjacent to Lot 2618-B, with the work undertaken by Catanduanes Builders Supply and General Merchandise (CBSGM) owned by Mendoza’s son Leo Martin.
Allegedly upon Mendoza’s request and as a measure of goodwill, the complainant allowed CBSGM to operate SBC free of any rentals while the new cockpit was being built.
He said it was Mendoza, who was then the vice mayor, who operated the cockpit from 2018 to April 2021 when Arcilla informed him that Mendoza’s operation of the cockpit was being terminated.
The complainant alleged that because of this, Mendoza began harassing the cockpit owner by filing complaints with the SB through an employee of the Office of the Vice Mayor named Felizardo Suaviso.
The complaints were eventually resolved by the SB, which granted Arcilla the 2021 franchise renewal.
In October 2018, he added, Mendoza filed with the Municipal Trial Court of San Andres an application for titling of Lot 2618-A, including Lot 2618-B or the portion of the lot owned by Arcilla. The case was dismissed by the court for lack of jurisdiction and an appeal is still pending before the Court of Appeals.
In December 2022, Arcilla stated, he wrote the SB of his intention to apply for a business permit for the cockpit for 2023.
However, in a letter dated Jan. 6, 2023, Mendoza, who became mayor in 2022, denied the application, citing several grounds.
The complaint said that despite the mayor’s letter, Arcilla’s representative applied for the permit and was allowed to pay all the fees on Jan. 17, 2023.
It argued that Mendoza had no basis or authority to deny SBC’s business permit application in view of the completeness of the supporting documents submitted and the existing franchise granted to the cockpit.
In his counter-affidavit, Mendoza argued that Arcilla violated the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies and doctrine of primary jurisdiction as he should have filed his complaint first with the governor.
He also claimed he had sufficient legal basis to deny the SBC application because the latter should have sought a new franchise and not a renewal and that the cockpit’s operation was in violation of various regulatory laws.
Arcilla countered that there was no reason to deny SBC a business permit on the alleged ground of distance requirements from religious or education structures, pointing out that it was disproved at the time of the approval of the franchise in 1990 when the two other churches were not yet existing.
In its 18-page ruling, the Ombudsman said Mendoza’s contention lacks merit as the laws and principles he cited do not apply in the case since the proceeding is not a mere review of the validity of the mayor’s letter to the complainant but rather disciplinary in nature.
Saying that there is substantial evidence to hold the respondent liable for violation of Sec. 21 of RA 9485 as amended by RA 11032, the anti-graft court said that under the law, an application for business permit shall be disapproved if the applicant failed to submit all the requirements thereof as listed in the Citizen’s Charter.
“The only permissible ground for disapproval of an application with complete requirements stated in the law is when there is a finding by a competent authority of a violation of any or other law by the applicant,” the Ombudsman stressed.
It noted that Mendoza, in his Jan. 6, 2023 letter, already denied the issuance of a business permit to the complainant even before his office received the latter’s application.
On the other hand, the ruling underscored that the grounds for denial listed by the respondent were all unrelated to the issue of whether or not the complainant submitted all the requirements for the business permit, but rather they pertain to the requirements imposed for the grant of a franchise to operate a cockpit.
The Ombudsman found that there was a clear violation of Sec. 21(e) of RA 9485 as amended by RA 11032 and that there was substantial evidence to hold respondent liable for Gross Neglect of Duty.
It held that under the law, the SB of San Andres is the competent authority on whether SBC violated any regulation and that there was no such finding when it granted the renewal of its franchise in 2022.
“His neglect is willful and intentional,” it said, noting that the SB stood firm on its position on the presumption of regularity of the cockpit franchise, a view Mendoza shared when he was still part of the council as vicew mayor.
On his claim of SBC’s alleged violation of the National Building Code, the Ombudsman pointed out that the respondent himself questioned Municipal Engineer Evangelica Balmadrid during one of the SB sessions and that latter categorically declared SBC has not violated the law.
Likewise, it was noted that at the time of Arcilla’s application for a business permit, he and Mendoza were involved in a legal dispute concerning the very lot where SBC is located, showing a motive to discriminate against the respondent.
The Ombudsman also found Mendoza liable for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, stating that his refusal to issue a business permit to complainant without sufficient justification and with evidence of motive to discriminate against complainant “has tarnished the image of his office considering that as a public officer, respondent is expected to rise above personal conflicts and act pursuant to the applicable laws and ordinance.”
The resolution finding Mendoza liable was prepared by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Fernando Bayad Jr. and concurred in by Assistant Ombudsman Adoracion Agbada, with San Andres native and Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Cornelio Somido taking no part in the proceedings.