Eastern Visayas Media Without Borders
By Miriam G. Desacada
Tacloban City–The Court of Appeals (5th Division) had denied Henry Encarnacion’s motion for reconsideration of its earlier ruling that reversed and dismissed the earliest decision of the Ombudsman in favor of his administrative complaints against then-mayor Ramon C. Oñate of Palompon, Leyte.
On September 12, 2024, the Ombudsman upheld Encarnacion’s complaint against Oñate, finding the then mayor “guilty of conduct prejudicial to the interest of service and of simple neglect of duty.”
But about two months later, the CA reversed and set aside the Ombudsman ruling, then dismissed it for lack of merit. This prompted Encarnacion to ask the CA to review its decision and to move for reconsideration.
On 16 February 2026, the CA 5th Division, chaired by Associate Justice Ramon Cruz, denied Encarnacion’s motion for reconsideration because the petitioner’s issues raised in his motion merely reiterated “recycled and previously rejected arguments.”
Both the CA’s reversal of the Ombuds ruling and the denial of the MR were concurred by Associate Justices Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon and Emily San Gaspar-Gito.
The entirety of the case started in 18 October 2023 when Encarnacion filed a complaint against then-mayor Onate with the Ombudsman of allegedly using his position as mayor and in conspiring with other LGU officials to initiate the updating and passing of a defective Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for Palompon.
Encarnacion alleged that the CLUP was approved despite the lack of the Forest Land Use Plan (FLUP), which he further alleged was done to favor Onate’s business interests in Barangay San Joaquin.
He also claimed that Brgy. San Joaquin “was conveniently and erroneously classified as an industrial zone,” rendering it no longer a part of the Palompon Watershed Forest Reserve (PWFR), which in turn practically shielded DBSN Farms, owned by his wife Lourdes Oñate, from being hit for alleged environmental transgressions.
The CA said that the Palompon Council and the Provincial Board approved the CLUP, an act that is accorded with the presumption of regularity in the performance of their functions, taking into account that it is presumed that they evaluated the documents presented to them.
In its reversal decision, the CA said that, even the Ombudsman, did not find the quantum of evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity, in the passage of the CLUP.
CLUP has complied with the requirements under pertinent regulations. “The Office of the Ombudsman added that there is an absence of any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary,” stated the CA.
On acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service, Encarnacion alleged DBSN Farms, all of its three plants—one in Albuera and two in Palompon—was embroiled in a controversy over its alleged violation of environmental laws. He said the inaction of Onate over these violations exhibited manifest partiality.
Ombudsman said Oñate committed constant disregard of the infractions by DBSN Farms, thus holding the mayor guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty.
CA reversed the ruling, and said the Ombudsman’s conclusion of neglect of duty is unsubstantiated and is based on ambiguous premises.
CA said the grievance raised by barangay residents in Albuera on air and water pollution caused by DBSN Farms was endorsed to the DENR and the Barangay Council in that town. The DENR issued notices of violation against the company and ordered it to pay the fines.
“The seeming inaction of Oñate does not necessarily amount to neglect of duty,” it stated in reversing Ombuds decision. “Oñate’s inaction … can be deemed as an effort to distance himself from the controversy in which DBSN Farms was mired.”
Considering that the complaint against DBSN Farms’ violations has already been submitted to the concerned agencies for proper action, Oñate opted to take the back seat to avoid the perception that he was, as mayor, intervening in the case, and to let the complaints go through their natural course without undue influence from him that would otherwise be inappropriate, the CA concluded.
Also the CA ruled that it would be absurd for Oñate to act on complaints that were not brought to his office, as mayor, over which he had no authority; that’s why he let the DENR decide on them.
Besides, DBSN Farms “is vested with a separate juridical personality”, as a corporation, thus Oñate, even if he has business interests there, “could not be made liable for infractions imputable to the farm’s corporate acts,” the CA added.
Oñate, in his defense, stated that, as mayor of Palompon, he has been at the forefront of enforcing environmental laws, such as those requiring proper solid waste disposal, but only within his jurisdiction.
Still unconvinced with the CA reversal of the Ombudsman ruling, Encarnacion filed a motion for reconsideration. However, the CA noted that his bases were a rehash of all the points he raised before but were already rejected. —–Miriam G. Desacada
