Court of Appeals Affirms Suspension of Former Mandaue City Mayor Jonas Cortes
The Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld a one-year suspension without pay imposed on former Mandaue City Mayor Jonas C. Cortes for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. This decision stems from his appointment of an officer-in-charge (OIC) to the City Social Welfare Services Office (CSWSO) despite the appointee lacking the required civil service qualifications.
Background and Ombudsman Ruling
In a decision issued on December 2, 2025, the CA Fourteenth Division dismissed Cortes's Petition for Review under Rule 43. The court affirmed the rulings of the Office of the Ombudsman from August 12, 2024, and September 30, 2024, which rejected the former mayor's motions for reconsideration.
The Ombudsman found Cortes administratively liable for appointing Camilo Basaca, Jr. as OIC-CSWSO in Mandaue City, even though Basaca failed to meet the qualification requirements under civil service laws and rules. Consequently, Cortes was penalized with a one-year suspension without salary.
Complaint and Qualification Issues
The complaint was filed in June 2023 by residents Sereno Gabayan Monsanto, Rosimay Cali Caling, and Annabel Dela Cerna Andebor. They alleged that Cortes's appointment of Basaca violated civil service law because Basaca was not a licensed social worker and lacked the required five years of social work experience.
At the time, Basaca served as Executive Assistant II under a co-terminous appointment in the Office of the City Mayor. The Ombudsman determined this appointment contradicted the requirements for a career position under the 2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions (ORAOHRA).
Furthermore, Basaca's academic qualification as a graduate of Bachelor of Science in Office Administration did not meet the educational standards for heading the CSWSO, which typically requires a licensed social worker or a graduate in sociology or a related field.
Defense and Court Clarifications
Cortes and Basaca argued that the appointment was made in good faith due to public service needs. They claimed Basaca had sufficient experience through community work and his passing of the Career Service Professional Examination qualified him for the OIC position.
In upholding the Ombudsman's decision, the CA clarified that the anti-graft body has primary jurisdiction over administrative cases against government officials. The court stated there was substantial evidence supporting the Ombudsman's conclusion.
Legal Proceedings and Final Outcome
Prior to the CA's final decision, Cortes attempted to halt the suspension by applying for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), but this was dismissed by the court. The CA reminded that Ombudsman decisions in administrative cases can be enforced immediately, even if appealed.
Since Cortes is no longer in office, the CA's decision notes that the penalty is considered served. This ruling underscores the importance of adherence to civil service regulations in public appointments.
