By CESAR JOLITO III
The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas clarified that the administrative charges against Moises Padilla Mayor Ella Garcia-Yulo and two others need not meet the technical precision of the cases, stating that the respondents failed to disclose all reasons for the unjustified delay in processing of a business permit renewal within the legal timeframe.
What matters, the Ombudsman-Visayas said, are the facts that the respondents — Yulo, Business Permit and Licensing Office officer-in-charge Warren Jocson, and Civil Registrar and Municipal Administrator-designate Archie Montelibano — failed to act within the prescribed period and failed to fully explain the grounds for denial of a business permit, a clear violation under Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) No. 11032, also known as the act of promoting ease of doing business and efficient delivery of government services.
The decision stemmed from a complaint filed by Ramona Nalagon-Villaflor, operator of a funeral parlor in Moises Padilla.
Villaflor applied for the renewal of her business permit in January 2023 and submitted the required documents.
However, the local government unit failed to act on her application for five months.
She sent a formal letter of inquiry to Yulo on June 14, 2023, the Ombudsman said.
It was only on June 26, 2023, that she received a notice of denial signed by Jocson, citing the existence of another funeral parlor using the same address — operated by her sister — as the basis for the denial.
The Ombudsman ruled that the respondents failed to disclose all reasons for the business permit denial in their June 26 and July 13 letters, mentioning only “the issue of duplication with another business at the same location.”
This, the Ombudsman found, omitted critical details such as alleged deficiencies in Villaflor’s documentary compliance — which the respondents only raised later and failed to reflect in their official communications.
The Ombudsman emphasized that Section 9 (b) (1) of RA 11032 requires all government offices to act on business permit applications within three working days for simple transactions, seven working days for complex ones, and 20 working days for highly technical or high-risk activities.
In this case, the five-month delay far exceeded the law’s maximum processing time, without any valid written notice, explanation or extension issued.
Under RA 11032, any denial of government service must be fully explained in writing, including the identity of the decision-maker and the specific legal grounds for the denial.
The Ombudsman concluded that the failure to observe these legal requirements, coupled with the undue delay, constituted substantial evidence of both violation of the law and abuse of authority.
As a result, Yulo, Jocson and Montelibano were each fined an amount equivalent to six months of their salaries.
In a statement, Yulo confirmed she would file a motion for reconsideration and declined to discuss the case further, citing its ongoing legal status.
“This is one of the challenges we face in public service,” Yulo said.
“We cannot please everybody, and complaints are part of the process, but this will not weaken our commitment to serve the greater good,” she added./CJ, WDJ