Vigor Mendoza, Teofilo Guadiz suspended over continued use of old LTO IT system
LTFRB Chairman, Atty. Vigor Mendoza II, and Office of Transportation Cooperatives (OTC) Chairperson Teofilo Guadiz III have both been placed under preventive suspension by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ombudsman Crispin Remulla issued the suspension order on August 17, 2026, following an administrative case involving the continued use of the Land Transportation Office's (LTO) old information technology system operated by STRADCOM.
The Ombudsman said the continued use of the system resulted in more than PHP 13.3 billion in computer fees being charged to the public from 2019 to 2025.
Mendoza, who currently heads the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), and Guadiz, who now chairs the OTC, will serve a six-month preventive suspension without pay or until the administrative case against them is resolved.
The order cites what the Ombudsman described as strong evidence supporting the administrative charges of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
Why the old LTO system is an issue
At the center of the case is the continued operation of the STRADCOM-managed LTO IT System even after the government had already developed and accepted its replacement, the Land Transportation Management System (LTMS).
The Commission on Audit (COA) previously flagged the continued parallel operation of both systems, saying it prevented the government from fully realizing the expected benefits of the LTMS.
It also placed an additional financial burden on motorists and other people transacting with the LTO. According to COA findings cited in the Ombudsman's ruling, computer fees collected through the STRADCOM system reached PHP 13,379,196,499.73 between 2019 and 2025.
“The continued utilization of the LTO IT System by Guadiz and Mendoza demonstrates a patent disregard of established government policy and prior official directives intended to transition LTO operations to the LTMS,” the ruling stated.
How STRADCOM remained in the picture
The LTO's relationship with STRADCOM dates back to 1998, when the government entered into a Build-Own-Operate (BOO) agreement covering the development and operation of computer systems and related infrastructure for LTO transactions nationwide.
The original 10-year concession expired on February 10, 2013. The arrangement was then extended on a month-to-month basis.
In 2016, the LTO and STRADCOM signed a Phase Out Agreement. This allowed the old system to remain in operation while the agency worked toward having a replacement system fully operational nationwide.
The replacement came in the form of the LTMS. In 2018, the government awarded the development and delivery of the new system to a joint venture led by Dermalog Identification Systems GmbH.
The LTO issued the LTMS Certificate of Project Completion and Final Acceptance in 2021. The system was subsequently established as the government's primary platform for vehicle registration, driver's licensing and other related transactions.
The LTO was then expected to gradually move away from the STRADCOM-operated system.
What the Ombudsman found
The Ombudsman's ruling pointed to actions taken during the terms of both Guadiz and Mendoza as LTO chiefs.
During Guadiz's tenure in 2022, the ruling said he pushed for the continued use of the old LTO IT System and favored STRADCOM, with Guadiz reportedly arguing that the older system “provides a better solution.”
Mendoza later became LTO chief in 2023. According to the Ombudsman, he issued several memoranda that effectively brought back and institutionalized the parallel use of the old system alongside the LTMS.
In January 2025, Mendoza also directed the processing of PUV registration renewals through the old system without requiring confirmation from the LTFRB.
The Ombudsman said the continued parallel operation allowed computer fees to keep being collected despite the expiration of STRADCOM's BOO agreement.
Mendoza responds
Following the preventive suspension order, Mendoza released a statement saying he respects the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman while the investigation continues.
The preventive suspension is an administrative measure while the case is pending and does not by itself constitute a final finding of guilt.
