The Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) is investigating Negros Oriental Governor Manuel "Chaco" L. Sagarbarria for nepotism, grave misconduct, and graft over the appointment of his alleged live-in partner to a senior position in the Provincial Governor's Office, according to case records.
The anti-graft office found "enough basis to proceed with the criminal/administrative investigation" and ordered the governor to file a counter-affidavit under a Joint Order dated May 28, 2026, issued at its Area Office for the Visayas in Guadalupe, Cebu City.
Two Cases Filed Against the Governor
The complaint, received by the Ombudsman on April 1, 2026, spawned two docketed cases: a criminal case for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (OMB-V-C-MAY-26-0130); and an administrative case for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Grave Misconduct (OMB-V-A-MAY-26-0170).
Appointment at the Center of the Complaint
At the center of the case is the appointment of Juvilin S. Calago as Executive Assistant IV, Salary Grade 22, Step 1, in the Provincial Governor's Office. According to the complaint, the appointment was made on the day Governor Sagarbarria assumed office and was among his first acts as chief executive.
Payroll records attached to the filing place Calago's basic monthly salary at ₱71,511, with a total monthly gross of ₱73,511, including a ₱2,000 personnel economic relief allowance.
The complaint alleges that Calago is the governor's live-in partner, that the two maintain a common household in Tierra Alta, Valencia, Negros Oriental, and that they have two children together. It further alleges that although appointed as executive assistant, Calago performed the functions of the provincial Public Information Officer — a separate, permanent plantilla position — while the incumbent permanent information officer was reassigned to a tourist assistance desk at the Provincial Tourism Office. The complaint characterizes that reassignment as constructive dismissal.
Five Alleged Violations
The complaint accuses the governor of five violations:
- Nepotism under Section 59, Chapter 8, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Revised Administrative Code of 1987), which bars appointments made in favor of a relative of the appointing authority within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity. Section 79 of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) extends the prohibition to the fourth civil degree in the local government career service. The complaint argues the prohibition should reach common-law partners, invoking the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly, and citing Article 147 of the Family Code — under which wages of cohabiting partners are owned in equal shares, meaning the governor would benefit from the salary drawn from the appointment.
- 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, bars dispensing undue favors, and directs officials to discourage perceptions of themselves as dispensers of patronage.
- 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 the appointing power for private gain.
- Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, on the ground that the appointment tarnished the image and integrity of the public office, regardless of whether a specific statute was breached.
- Violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, which penalizes public officers who cause undue injury to any party or give any private party unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
Penalties if the Charges Are Proven
Under civil service rules, nepotism and grave misconduct are grave offenses punishable by dismissal even on a first offense. Dismissal carries accessory penalties including cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and a bar from future civil service examinations.
Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service carries suspension of six months and one day to one year for a first offense, and dismissal for a second offense.
A conviction under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 carries imprisonment of six years and one month to 15 years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and forfeiture of any prohibited interest or unexplained wealth. Under Section 11 of RA 6713, an official found in violation may face a fine of up to six months' equivalent salary, suspension of up to one year, or removal — without prejudice to criminal liability carrying imprisonment of up to five years, a fine, or both.
The complaint also asks the Ombudsman to declare the appointment null and void, order the appointee to vacate the position and return all salaries and benefits received, place the governor under preventive suspension for up to six months under Section 24 of RA 6770 (the Ombudsman Act of 1989), and refer the matter to the Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. VII.
Ombudsman Order and Procedural Restrictions
The Joint Order gave the governor an inextendible period of 15 days from receipt to submit a counter-affidavit and controverting evidence in three legible copies, with proof of service. Failure to comply would be deemed a waiver of the right to present a counter-affidavit, after which 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 — stating these would be stricken from the records. It was issued for Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Dante F. Vargas and signed by Portia A. Pacquiao, Acting Director of the Preliminary Investigation, Administrative Adjudication and Prosecution Bureau–A, per Office Order No. 210, Series of 2025.
Governor Denies All Allegations, Appointee Already Resigned
Governor Sagarbarria filed a counter-affidavit sworn on July 10, 2026 in Dumaguete City, categorically denying all the allegations. He argued that Calago is not his relative because the two are not married, and that the position she held is primarily confidential and therefore exempt from the anti-nepotism rule. He asked the Ombudsman to dismiss both cases outright and deny the prayer for preventive suspension.
Documents attached to the counter-affidavit show that Calago tendered her resignation on March 31, 2026, which the governor accepted effective the same date.
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 administrative liability, which can be determined only after the investigation is completed. Governor Sagarbarria is presumed innocent unless and until the Ombudsman rules otherwise.
By the Numbers
- ₱71,511 — Calago's basic monthly salary as Executive Assistant IV, Salary Grade 22, Step 1
- ₱73,511 — Total monthly gross, including a ₱2,000 personnel economic relief allowance
- April 1, 2026 — Date the complaint was received by the Ombudsman
- May 28, 2026 — Date of the Joint Order directing the governor to file a counter-affidavit
- July 10, 2026 — Date Governor Sagarbarria swore his counter-affidavit in Dumaguete City
- 15 days — Inextendible period given to the governor to submit his counter-affidavit
- Up to 6 months — Preventive suspension period sought by the complaint under RA 6770
- 6 years and 1 month to 15 years — Potential imprisonment under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 if convicted
Why This Matters
The Ombudsman investigation places a sitting provincial governor under formal scrutiny at the earliest stage of his administration, with the central appointment in question made on his very first day in office. If the charges are sustained, the governor faces penalties ranging from dismissal and perpetual disqualification from public office to criminal imprisonment of up to 15 years under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The case also tests the legal boundaries of anti-nepotism rules in Philippine law — specifically whether those prohibitions extend to common-law partners who are not relatives by blood or marriage.
Photo credit: Photo from Office of the Ombudsman