The Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) is investigating Dumaguete City Mayor Manuel "Chiquiting" T. Sagarbarria and City Administrator Neil Rey M. Lagahit on charges of nepotism, grave misconduct, and graft in connection with the appointment of the live-in partner of the mayor's daughter to a position in the Office of the City Mayor, according to case records reviewed for this report.
The anti-graft office issued a Joint Order dated May 28, 2026, finding "enough basis to proceed with the criminal and administrative investigation" and directing both officials to file counter-affidavits. The order was issued at the Ombudsman's Area Office for the Visayas in Guadalupe, Cebu City.
Cases Filed Against Both Officials
The complaint, received by the Ombudsman on April 1, 2026, generated two docketed cases: a criminal case docketed as OMB-V-C-MAY-26-0129 for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; and an administrative case docketed as OMB-V-A-MAY-26-0169 for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Grave Misconduct.
The Appointment at the Center of the Case
The complaint concerns the appointment of Magnus Kenneth Lucas as Administrative Assistant I, Salary Grade 7, in the Office of the City Mayor, at a daily wage of ₱637.06, for the period July 1 to December 31, 2025. The appointment was made on July 1, 2025 — the same day Mayor Sagarbarria assumed office — upon the recommendation of Lagahit, who serves concurrently as head of the City Human Resource Management Office.
The appointment was contained in a Plantilla of Casual Appointments (CS Form 34-C) dated August 19, 2025, bearing the signatures of Lagahit as certifying officer and Sagarbarria as appointing authority. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) field office in Negros Oriental received the document on August 1, 2025, and it carries a CSC notation of approval dated August 19, 2025.
According to the complaint, Lucas has been the live-in partner of the mayor's daughter — an incumbent Dumaguete city councilor — for more than five years. The couple reportedly has a child together and resides in the same household as the mayor. The appointment was not renewed for 2026.
Alleged Irregularities in the Hiring
Beyond the nepotism allegation, the complaint further charges that Lucas lacked the civil service eligibility required for the position, that the item was unfunded at the time of appointment and was funded only in January 2026 upon the mayor's endorsement to the city council, and that Lucas did not regularly report for work.
Lagahit is named as co-respondent on the basis that, as the city's human resource gatekeeper, he was responsible for ensuring compliance with civil service rules — including the anti-nepotism prohibition — before the appointment reached the mayor's desk for signature.
Five Violations Alleged
The complaint accuses the two officials of five distinct violations:
- Nepotism under Section 59, Chapter 8, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Revised Administrative Code of 1987), which bars appointments in favor of relatives within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity. The complaint invokes the doctrine that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly, arguing the prohibition should extend to common-law partners, and cites Article 147 of the Family Code — under which wages of cohabiting partners are co-owned — to show the benefit of the appointment flowed into the mayor's own household.
- Violation of Section 4(b) and (c) of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), which requires professionalism and justness and bars officials from dispensing undue favors on account of their office.
- Grave Misconduct, on the ground that the appointment was made with willful intent to circumvent the anti-nepotism rule, involved manifest partiality and evident bad faith, and constituted an abuse of appointing power.
- Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, on the ground that the appointment tarnished the image and integrity of the public offices held by the respondents.
- Violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, which penalizes public officers who cause undue injury to the government or give any private party unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
Penalties the Officials Face if Found Liable
Under civil service rules, nepotism and grave misconduct are grave offenses punishable by dismissal even on a first offense. Dismissal carries accessory penalties of cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and a bar from future civil service examinations.
A conviction for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 carries imprisonment of six years and one month to 15 years and perpetual disqualification from public office. Under RA 6713, penalties may include fines, suspension, removal, and criminal liability carrying up to five years' imprisonment.
The complaint also asks the Ombudsman to declare the appointment null and void from the beginning, order Lucas to vacate the position and return all salaries and benefits received, and place the respondents under preventive suspension for up to six months while the case is pending. It further asks the Ombudsman to refer the matter to the Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. VII and to the Sandiganbayan.
Counter-Affidavit Deadline and Procedural Rules
The Joint Order gave respondents a non-extendible period of 15 days from receipt to submit counter-affidavits and controverting evidence in three legible copies, with proof of service on the complainant. Failure to comply would be deemed a waiver of the right to present a counter-affidavit, and the investigation would proceed under existing rules.
The order barred prohibited pleadings — including motions to dismiss, motions for a bill of particulars, motions for extension of time, and second motions for reconsideration or reinvestigation — and directed that such filings be stricken from the record. It was issued for Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Dante F. Vargas and signed by Katherine A. Genovesa-Mahawan, Officer-in-Charge of the Preliminary Investigation, Administrative Adjudication and Prosecution Bureau–B.
Mayor Denies All Charges, Seeks Dismissal
Mayor Sagarbarria filed a counter-affidavit sworn on July 15, 2026 in Dumaguete City — a day before his deadline — in which he denied all the allegations point by point. He argued that Lucas is not his relative under the anti-nepotism statutes because Lucas is not married to his daughter, and noted that the Civil Service Commission had approved the appointment. He asked the Ombudsman to dismiss both cases outright and to deny the prayer for preventive suspension.
No separate counter-affidavit from Lagahit appears in the case records reviewed for this report.
The proceedings remain at the preliminary investigation and administrative adjudication stage. An order to file a counter-affidavit is a standard procedural step and is not a finding of guilt or of administrative liability, which can be determined only after the investigation is completed. Mayor Sagarbarria and City Administrator Lagahit are presumed innocent unless and until the Ombudsman rules otherwise.
By the Numbers
- ₱637.06 — daily wage of Lucas as Administrative Assistant I, Salary Grade 7
- July 1 to December 31, 2025 — the period covered by the appointment
- 5+ years — alleged duration of the live-in relationship between Lucas and the mayor's daughter
- April 1, 2026 — date the complaint was received by the Ombudsman
- May 28, 2026 — date of the Joint Order finding enough basis to investigate
- July 15, 2026 — date Mayor Sagarbarria filed his counter-affidavit
- 6 years and 1 month to 15 years — potential imprisonment for a Section 3(e) RA 3019 conviction
- Up to 6 months — preventive suspension being sought while the case is pending
Why This Matters
The Ombudsman's decision to proceed with both criminal and administrative investigations places two of Dumaguete City's top officials under formal scrutiny over a hiring decision made on the very first day of the current administration. If the charges are upheld, the applicable penalties — including perpetual disqualification from public office and imprisonment — would have significant consequences for city governance. The case also tests whether existing anti-nepotism rules cover common-law relationships, a legal question the Ombudsman will be required to resolve in the course of the investigation.
Photo credit: Photo courtesy of the Office of the Ombudsman