Two senior Dumaguete City officials are now under formal investigation by the anti-graft office after a complaint alleged that the live-in partner of the mayor’s daughter was given a government post on the very day the mayor took office — an appointment critics say violated civil service anti-nepotism rules, eligibility requirements, and budget procedures.
Case records reviewed for this report confirm that the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) has opened both criminal and administrative proceedings against Mayor Manuel “Chiquiting” T. Sagarbarria and City Administrator Neil Rey M. Lagahit in connection with the hiring of Magnus Kenneth Lucas as Administrative Assistant I at the Office of the City Mayor.
How the Investigation Was Triggered
The complaint was received by the Ombudsman on April 1, 2026. Based on its review, the anti-graft office issued a Joint Order dated May 28, 2026, finding sufficient grounds to move forward. The order was issued at the Ombudsman’s Area Office for the Visayas in Guadalupe, Cebu City, and directed both Sagarbarria and Lagahit to submit their counter-affidavits within a non-extendible 15-day period from receipt, according to case records.
The Joint Order was issued for Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Dante F. Vargas and was signed by Katherine A. Genovesa-Mahawan, Officer-in-Charge of the Preliminary Investigation, Administrative Adjudication and Prosecution Bureau–B, case records show.
Two Separate Cases Docketed
The complaint produced two formally docketed proceedings. The criminal case, bearing docket number OMB-V-C-MAY-26-0129, charges the officials with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The administrative case, docketed as OMB-V-A-MAY-26-0169, charges them with Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, according to case records.
The Appointment at the Heart of the Complaint
Lucas was appointed to the position of Administrative Assistant I, Salary Grade 7, in the Office of the City Mayor, earning a daily wage of ₱637.06. The appointment covered the period July 1 to December 31, 2025 — and notably, it was made on July 1, 2025, the same day Mayor Sagarbarria assumed office. Lagahit, who concurrently serves as head of the City Human Resource Management Office, recommended the appointment, case records show.
The appointment was documented in a Plantilla of Casual Appointments (CS Form 34-C) dated August 19, 2025, bearing the signatures of both Lagahit as certifying officer and Sagarbarria as the appointing authority. The Civil Service Commission field office in Negros Oriental received the document on August 1, 2025, and the CSC notation reflects an approval date of August 19, 2025. The appointment was not renewed when 2026 began.
According to the complaint, Lucas has been the live-in partner of the mayor’s daughter — a sitting Dumaguete city councilor — for more than five years. The couple reportedly has a child together and shares the same household as the mayor.
Additional Irregularities Alleged
Beyond the core nepotism allegation, the complaint raises further concerns. It asserts that Lucas lacked the civil service eligibility required for the position, that the plantilla item was unfunded when Lucas was appointed and was only funded in January 2026 following the mayor’s endorsement to the city council, and that Lucas did not regularly report for work, according to the complaint as reviewed in case records.
Lagahit is named as a co-respondent on the theory that, as the city’s human resource gatekeeper, he bore the duty to verify compliance with civil service rules — including the prohibition against nepotism — before any appointment reached the mayor’s desk for signature.
Five Distinct Violations Charged
The complaint, as reflected in case records, enumerates five separate violations attributed to both officials:
- Nepotism under Section 59, Chapter 8, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (the Revised Administrative Code of 1987), which prohibits appointments favoring relatives within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity. The complaint invokes the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly, arguing the prohibition should extend to common-law partners. It also cites Article 147 of the Family Code — under which wages of cohabiting partners are considered co-owned — to argue that the benefit of the appointment effectively 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 mandates professionalism and fairness, and bars public officers from dispensing undue favors by reason of their position.
- Grave Misconduct, premised on the allegation that the appointment was carried out with deliberate intent to circumvent the anti-nepotism rule, involving manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and an abuse of the power to appoint.
- Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, on the ground that the appointment damaged 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, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, cause undue injury to the government or confer unwarranted benefits on a private party.
Penalties the Officials Could Face
Under civil service regulations, both nepotism and grave misconduct are classified as grave offenses that carry dismissal even on a first offense. Dismissal, in turn, triggers accessory penalties that include 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 under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 carries a prison term of six years and one month to 15 years, plus perpetual disqualification from public office, according to the law. Penalties under RA 6713 may include fines, suspension, removal, and criminal liability carrying a maximum of five years’ imprisonment.
The complaint further prays that the Ombudsman declare the appointment void from the start, order Lucas to vacate the position and return all salaries and benefits received, and place both respondents under preventive suspension for up to six months pending the investigation. It also asks the Ombudsman to refer the matter to the Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. VII and to the Sandiganbayan.
Procedural Rules Set by the Ombudsman
The Joint Order barred a range of prohibited pleadings — including motions to dismiss, motions for a bill of particulars, motions for extension of time, and second motions for reconsideration or reinvestigation — directing that any such filings be stricken from the record, case documents show. Failure by the respondents to file counter-affidavits within the prescribed period would be treated as a waiver of that right, with the investigation proceeding on the basis of existing records.
Mayor Denies All Charges
Mayor Sagarbarria filed his counter-affidavit on July 15, 2026 — one day before his deadline — sworn before a notary in Dumaguete City, in which he categorically denied every allegation. He argued that Lucas falls outside the scope of the anti-nepotism statutes because Lucas is not married to his daughter, and he pointed out that the Civil Service Commission had approved the appointment. The mayor asked the Ombudsman to dismiss both cases outright and to deny the prayer for his preventive suspension, according to the counter-affidavit referenced in case records.
No separate counter-affidavit from Lagahit appears in the case records reviewed for this report.
Both officials are at the preliminary investigation and administrative adjudication stage of the proceedings. The Ombudsman’s order to file counter-affidavits is a standard procedural step and does not constitute a finding of guilt or liability. Mayor Sagarbarria and City Administrator Lagahit are presumed innocent unless and until a final determination is made by the Ombudsman.
By the Numbers
- ₱637.06 — Lucas’s daily wage as Administrative Assistant I, Salary Grade 7
- July 1 – December 31, 2025 — period covered by the contested appointment
- 5+ years — alleged duration of the live-in relationship between Lucas and the mayor’s daughter
- 6 years and 1 month to 15 years — potential prison term under RA 3019 if convicted
- Up to 6 months — preventive suspension sought by complainant while the case is pending
- Up to 5 years — maximum imprisonment under RA 6713
- 15 days — non-extendible period given to respondents to file counter-affidavits
Why This Matters
The case puts two of Dumaguete City’s top administrators under formal anti-graft scrutiny at a critical point in the new city administration, with potential consequences that include dismissal from service, perpetual disqualification from public office, and criminal imprisonment. Beyond the individual liability of the respondents, the complaint raises broader questions about the safeguards governing casual appointments in local government — specifically whether existing civil service rules are adequate to address nepotism involving common-law relationships rather than legally recognized family ties. A ruling by the Ombudsman on whether the anti-nepotism prohibition extends to live-in partners could set a significant precedent for local government hiring practices nationwide.
Source: Breaking News Negros Oriental / case records reviewed for this report
