Former LTO chief slams new graft complaint as ‘retaliation’
Mendoza maintained that the issue is not new, labeling the complaint a ‘recycled issue.’
Text size
Share
Daily TribuneMendoza maintained that the issue is not new, labeling the complaint a ‘recycled issue.’
Share
FORMER Land Transportation Office Chief Vigor Mendoza II.
Photograph by Analy Labor for DAILY TRIBUNE
Former Land Transportation Office (LTO) chief Vigor Mendoza II dismissed a newly filed graft complaint Thursday, characterizing the legal action as a “desperate” attempt at retaliation by groups impacted by his previous agency reforms.
Mendoza, who now serves on the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), said the allegations of “undue favoritism” are a reaction to his aggressive efforts to modernize the LTO.
“Our aggressive reforms for faster, more comfortable services at the LTO cut deeply into the interests of certain individuals and groups,” Mendoza said in a statement. “This is not about accountability. This is plain and simple desperation to get even.”
The defense comes in response to a second graft complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman by the Federated Land Transport Organizations of the Philippines (FELTOP).
The group, which represents 60,000 small-scale operators, alleges that Mendoza showed preferential treatment toward Stradcom Corp., allowing the company to collect more than P169 million in computer fees from public utility vehicle operators between January 2025 and February 2026.
Mendoza maintained that the issue is not new, labeling the complaint a “recycled issue.” While he said he respects the Ombudsman as the proper forum for such matters, he insisted the case lacks merit.
FELTOP has asked the Ombudsman to impose a 90-day preventive suspension on Mendoza and to order a full refund of the 169-peso fee per transaction, which the group argues lacks justification.
“Accountability, transparency, and protection for small transport operators remain our top priorities,” FELTOP spokesperson Jun Braga said.
The Office of the Ombudsman will now review the filing to determine if there is sufficient evidence to launch a formal investigation.
