Mabatid’s far-fetched theories

By: Atty. Ruphil Bañoc July 12,2018 - 08:48 PM


The controversial issue involving Mabolo Barangay Captain Prisca Niña Mabatid has two sides that need to be fairly weighed.

On the part of the complainants, Waterfront Hotel Manager Irene Juliet Lacerna, staff Welbert Pepito and Edwin Acuyan, narrated that Mabatid is liable for grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming a public officer, and conduct prejudicial to the public service. They filed the complaint at the Ombudsman-Visayas.

Pepito said at 4:50 am of June 19, 2018 he was the guard-on-duty stationed in the guests’ elevator landing near the lobby when he noticed two persons who entered the hotel lobby. They were holding each other, walking unsteadily, swaying and with much difficulty. They appeared to be drunk. They proceeded to the guests’ elevator landing.

As part of hotel protocol, he politely approached the two and asked them if they were registered guests. He was surprised when the woman, identified later as Mabatid suddenly started shouting. He tried to reason with her that he was just doing his job, but she ignored his explanation. She was persistently asking if he knew her, and that she was Nina Mabatid, barangay captain of Mabolo.

While Mabatid continued shouting demeaning words at him, her boyfriend Ramon Floresta kicked his stomach. Lacerna, the duty manager, went to the area to check the commotion. She witnessed Floresta threw a hard punch at Pepito’s right cheek. Unfortunately, the lady manager was not exempted as Floresta elbowed her on her right chest. The incident was covered by the CCTV footage.

On her part, Mabatid admitted the incident as shown in the CCTV, but put up two theories, to wit: 1. she was mistaken as an escort, and 2. it was politically motivated.

Considering that Mabatid’s claim runs counter to the complainants’ claim, let’s go back to the evidence, the CCTV footage, as it will speak for itself.

In the video, the hotel staff’s gestures were calm and humble.

They manifested utmost professionalism when they remained composed even when they were physically hit.

Such professionalism tells us that it is unlikely that they used foul words such as “escort.”

In contrast, review the actions of Mabatid and Florista. Are they not the ones showing arrogance, grave abuse and unprofessionalism? Is that the way a public official behaves?

Granting arguendo that she was mistaken as an escort, would it give her the right to get angry and inflict injuries? What is in the word “escort” that could make her react out of proportion, if there is no truth to it, anyway?

The second theory on “politics” does not deserve a discussion. The issue grew out of their own actions. “Nadagma sa kaugalingong kiat.”

Read Next

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.