Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao
Earth corner Libra Streets, GSIS Heights, Matina, Davao City
-oOo-

RICHARD E. JAVIER
Complainant,

-versus-

EDDIE T. QUIMBO OMB-M-A-19-0166

Municipal Mayor For: Violation of Sec. 5(a) (Act
LGU-Labason, Zamboanga del Norte Promptly on Letters & Requests)
of R.A. No. 6713

Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
COMES NOW RESPONDENT by himself and to this Honorable Office most respectfully submits
this Position Paper in compliance with its order dated May 27, 2019 which he received on June
20, 2019.

FACTS OF THE CASE

This complaint arose when the Complainant constructed a house at the proposed Municipal
Street located at Barangay Gil Sanchez St., Labason without any permission from the local
government unit several years ago. Now, when the local government began informing the
informal settlers to vacate the said affected properties of the road construction, Complainant
began sending communications to the Office of the Mayor arguing the legality of displacing the
residents of the said properties affected by the road construction.

As can be gleaned by the series of communications between the Complainant and the Office of
the Mayor, along the way the Complainant began accusing the Mayor of violating certain
provisions of law particularly Section 3 (i) of R.A. 3019.

First letter received by the Office of the Mayor was on December 2017 wherein the Office of
the Mayor made its reply on January 8, 20181.

On January 28, 2018, Complainant requested for a Certified True Copy of the Statement of
Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) of the Respondent Mayor Eddie T. Quimbo2.

On January 29, 2018, the following day, Complainant again reiterated his threat to file criminal
and administrative charges against the Respondent Mayor if he continues his plan to construct

1
Annex B of Respondent’s Counter Affidavit.
2
Annex A of the Complaint-Affidavit.
a road along Zamora St. which will directly affect the property where the Complainant built a
house without the consent of the municipal government3.

Before these series of communications, there were already negotiations that were made
between the Complainant and the Office of the Mayor. As early as November 2017, the
municipal government of Labason, began sending notices to occupants who will be affected by
the construction of the proposed Municipal street located along Zamora St. in Barangay Gil
Sanchez. All of the occupants were made to understand of the importance of the said
construction. All of the occupants agreed to vacate the place bearing in mind that their
possession of the said property were merely tolerated by the local government of Labason,
however the Complainant demanded compensation in the amount of P30,000.004.

Respondent Mayor personally talked to the Complainant and they arrived at an agreement to
pay the P30,000.00 compensation for the Complainant to relocate. However, the following day
the Complainant returned the money without any explanation and after a few weeks,
Complainant then sent a letter to the Respondent which was received on December 2017,
accusing him of so many things including violation on the provision of section 3 (i) of R.A. 3019
which prohibits any public officer from “directly or indirectly becoming interested for personal
gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act”.

Respondent was later informed by his advisers that the Complainant seek legal advice from one
of his political opponents.

Respondent has consistently been dealing with the Complainant in the most reasonable way. At
first, Respondent believed that the Complainant has been dealing with him in good faith.
However, after learning from several of his trusted advisers that the Complainant had been
influenced by his political opponents, Respondent began to doubt the motive behind the
request of the Complainant for a copy of the Respondent’s SALN.

Respondent personally believed that Complainant’s request for a copy of his SALN is a way of
making good his threats of filing criminal and administrative charges against him. Complainant’s
ultimate goal is for the Respondent Mayor to withdraw his plans of constructing a road along
Zamora St. or it is the Complainant’s way of getting even with the Respondent Mayor Eddie
Quimbo.

ISSUES

1. Did Respondent Mayor Eddie T. Quimbo violate the provisions of Section 5(a) of R.A. 6713
(Act Promptly on Letters and Requests)?

2. Was the denial of the request justified under the given circumstances?

DISCUSSIONS AND ARGUMENTS

Section 5(a) of R.A. 6713 provides

1. Did Respondent Mayor Eddie T. Quimbo violate the provisions of Section 5(a) of R.A. 6713
(Act Promptly on Letters and Requests)?

3
Annex A of the Respondent’s Position Paper.
4
Counter Affidavit of Respondent Mayor Eddie T. Quimbo.
“ Duties of Public Officials and Employees. - In the performance of their duties, all public officials
and employees are under obligation to:

(a) Act promptly on letters and requests. - All public officials and employees shall, within fifteen
(15) working days from receipt thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means of
communications sent by the public. The reply must contain the action taken on the request.”

Respondent Mayor Eddie Quimbo as the Mayor of the Municipality of Labason has the practice
of delegating some of his workloads to his heads of office. Complainant submitted his letter
request on January 28, 2018 and was received by the Office of Human Resource Management.

The Office of the Human Resource Management then headed by Mr. Ceriaco Sabijon then
forwarded the said letter to the Office of the Mayor on January 30, 20185.

Respondent Mayor then intimated to Mr. Ceriaco Sabijon his intention to deny the request of
the Complainant on the ground that the request is a way of harassing the Respondent and that
the Complainant is only fishing for evidence. However, the head of office at the time Mr.
Ceriaco Sabijon is very much distracted because of an on- going administrative and criminal
cases filed against him. By February 15, 2018, Mr. Sabijon was dismissed from government
service as a result of the cases filed against him6. Mr. Sabijon was not able to communicate to
the Complainant the intention to deny Complainant’s request.

On March 1, 2018, Respondent appointed co- respondent Mr. Jose Anniver B. Cadungog as
Acting HRMO Head. Then on the second week of March 2018, Respondent Cadungog informed
Respondent Mayor Quimbo that Complainant made some inquiry about his request for a copy
of the Respondent Mayor’s SALN. Respondent Mayor Quimbo then reiterated his denial of the
Complainant’s request and this time Respondent Cadungog informed the Complainant through
writing dated March 23, 20187 that his request for a copy of the Mayor’s SALN is denied.

a. Did Respondent Mayor Quimbo acted promptly on the request of the Complainant?

Respondent Mayor, at the moment he was made aware of the letter request, immediately
made known to Mr. Sabijon his decision to deny the request of the Complainant. However,
considering the circumstances of Mr. Sabijon at that time, it is the belief of the Respondent
Mayor that Mr. Sabijon may have overlooked to inform the Complainant within the 15 day
period set by Section 5(a) of R.A. 6713.

Respondent Mayor, iterates that the sending of letter reply to the Complainant is delegated to
his heads of office. Respondent Mayor has to attend to other equally important functions and
responsibilities. Respondent Mayor understands the importance of having to act promptly on
letters, telegrams, requests from the public but because of the extraordinary circumstances ,
Mr. Sabijon the HRMO head at the time might have overlooked to make such reply promptly
within the 15 day period.

However, when Respondent Cadungog took office on March 1, 2018 and when his attention
was called upon by the Complainant regarding the request, Respondent Cadungog acted
promptly and informed the Complainant in writing of the denial of his request.

5
Annex B of the Complaint-Affidavit.
6
Annex B of this Position Paper.
7
Annex C of the Complaint-Affidavit.
2. Was the denial of the request justified under the given circumstances?

a. Was the denial supported by law and jurisprudence?

The denial of the Complainant’s request is supported by law and jurisprudence.

The law on access to information is not absolute, Section 8 (d) of R.A. 6713 provides that

“It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain or use any statement filed under this
Act for:

(a) any purpose contrary to morals or public policy; or

(b) any commercial purpose other than by news and communications media for
dissemination to the general public.”

Section 7 (b) of Executive Order 2, Series of 2016 sometimes referred to as the Freedom of
Information Law provides that

“Each government office must protect personal information in its custody or control
by making reasonable security arrangements against leak or premature disclosure of
personal information which unduly exposes the individual whose personal
information is requested, to vilification, harassment or any other wrongful acts.”

In a Supreme Court case, In re: Request of Jose M. Alejandrino, “the Court denied the request
of Atty. Alejandrino for the SALNs of the Justices of the Court due to a "plainly discernible"
improper motive. Aggrieved by an adverse decision of the Court, he accused the Justices of
patent partiality and alluded that they enjoyed an early Christmas as a result of the decision
promulgated by the Court. Atty. Alejandrino even singled out the Justices who took part in the
decision and conspicuously excluded the others who, for one reason or another, abstained
from voting therein.

While the Court expressed its willingness to have the Clerk of Court furnish copies of the SALN
of any of its members, it however, noted that requests for SALNs must be made under
circumstances that must not endanger, diminish or destroy the independence, and objectivity
of the members of the Judiciary in the performance of their judicial functions, or expose them
to revenge for adverse decisions, kidnapping, extortion, blackmail or other untoward incidents.

Thus, in order to give meaning to the constitutional right of the people to have access to
information on matters of public concern, the Court laid down the guidelines to be observed for
requests made. Thus:

1. All requests for copies of statements of assets and liabilities of any Justice or Judge shall be
filed with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court or with the Court Administrator, as the case
may be (Section 8 [A][2], R.A. 6713), and shall state the purpose of the request.

2. The independence of the Judiciary is constitutionally as important as the right to information

which is subject to the limitations provided by law. Under specific circumstances, the need
for fair and just adjudication of litigations may require a comt to be wary of deceptive requests
for information which shall otherwise be freely available. Where the request is directly or
indirectly traced to a litigant, lawyer, or interested party in a case pending before the court, or
where the court is reasonably certain that a disputed matter will come before it under
circumstances from which it may, also reasonably, be assumed that the request is not made in
good faith and for a legitimate purpose, but to fish for information and, with the implicit threat
of its disclosure, to influence a decision or to warn the court of the unpleasant consequences of
an adverse judgment, the request may be denied.

3. Where a decision has just been rendered by a court against the person making the request
and the request for information appears to be a "fishing expedition" intended to harass or get
back at the Judge, the request may be denied.

4· In the few areas where there is extortion by rebel elements or where the nature of their
work exposes Judges to assaults against their personal safety, the request shall not only be
denied but should be immediately reported to the military.

5. The reason for the denial shall be given in all cases.8”

Like all constitutional guarantees, however, the right to information, with its companion right of
access to official records, is not absolute. While providing guaranty for that right, the
Constitution also provides that the people's right to know subject to limitations as may be
provided by law.

While public officers in the custody or control of public records have the discretion to regulate
the manner in which records may be inspected, examined or copied by interested persons,
Respondent is aware that such discretion does not carry with it the authority to prohibit access,
inspection, examination, or copying of the records. After all, public office is a public trust. Public
officers and employees 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.

a. Was the denial of the request justified under the given circumstance?

Respondent Mayor Quimbo seriously doubts the motive of the Complainant. It is obvious from
the circumstances presented as supported by the correspondence by the Complainant and the
Respondent Mayor that Complainant has nothing but ill-will against the Respondent Mayor
when the Complainant threatened the Respondent Mayor of some administrative and criminal
complaints if he pushes with his plan to construct a road along Zamora St.

Complainant request for the Respondent Mayor’s SALN deliberately coincided with his threat to
file administrative and criminal charges against him. It is a form of a blackmail designed to force
the Respondent Mayor to let go of his plan to construct a road along Zamora St.

Complainant however has other remedies, Memorandum Circular No. 3 Series of 2012 of the
Office of the Ombudsman has set guidelines for the public to access the SALN of the public
officials including the Respondent Mayor.

Sec. 3 of the said memorandum guides the public where to file the request. Sec. 6 of the said
memorandum further states that anybody can request for a lifestyle check to any public official
whom they suspected of having accumulated wealth illegally, even with or without the SALN
being secured.
Respondent has been greatly affected by the harassment perpetrated against him by his
political opponents and it poses as a big distraction on the Respondent’s ability to perform his
functions as a municipal mayor.

8
Resolution dated May 2, 1989
 PRAYER
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 to
dismiss this complaint.

Respondent prays for other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Labason, Zamboanga del Norte for Davao City, Philippines, June 24, 2019.

EDDIE T. QUIMBO
Respondent

VERIFICATION
I, EDDIE T. QUIMBO, of legal age, married, Filipino citizen and with address at Gil Sanchez,
Labason, Zamboanga del Norte, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with
law hereby depose and state:

That I am the Respondent 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 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 set my hand this 24tht day of June ,2019 at Labason,
Zamboanga del Norte, Philippines.

EDDIE T. QUIMBO
Respondent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, a notary public in and for the Province of
Zamboanga del Norte, this June 24, 2019, Affiant personally came and appeared with I.D. No.
1211-1965-9075 UMID, bearing his photograph and signature, known to me as the same person
who personally signed the foregoing Position Paper before me and avowed under penalty of law
to the truth of the contents of the said Position Paper.

Doc. No. ____ Notary Public

Page No. ____
Book No. ____
Series of 2019

Copy furnished: (by Registered mail)

Mr. Richard E. Javier

Gil Sanchez, Labason, Zamboanga del Norte

Registry Receipt No. ________________

Date Mailed: ____________________