The PSOE demands accountability from Feijóo after "159 days" since the case of the mayor of Móstoles became known: "In the PP, victims come second"

The socialist party has stated that the president of the PP, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, continues "without assuming responsibilities" after "159 days" have passed since the case investigating the 'popular' mayor of the municipality of Móstoles, Juan Manuel Bautista, came to light, due to a complaint admitted for processing by a Madrid court from a former PP councilwoman who accuses him of sexual and workplace harassment.

The PSOE has accused the leader of the main opposition party of "cover-up" and "protection" of the mayor of Móstoles through its X account. "159 days have passed since the harassment case of the mayor of #MÓSTOLES became known, and Feijóo still does not assume responsibilities. 159 days of cover-up. 159 days protecting the aggressor. 159 days demonstrating that in the PP, victims come last," the socialists wrote.

Han pasado 159 días desde que se conoció el caso de acoso del alcalde de #MÓSTOLES

Y Feijóo sigue sin asumir responsabilidades.
159 días de encubrimiento.
159 días protegiendo al agresor.
159 días demostrando que en el PP las víctimas
van…

— PSOE (@PSOE) July 13, 2026

The mayor of Móstoles summoned to testify on October 9

The mayor of Móstoles from the Popular Party, Manuel Bautista, has been summoned on October 9 as an investigated party in the case for the complaint filed against him by a former councilwoman for sexual and workplace harassment. This has been decided by the judge of plaza 2 of the Section of Violence against Women of the Local Court of Instance, who, in turn, has summoned five witnesses, as reported by 'El País'.

Likewise, the 'EFE' agency has reported that among the witnesses are the complainant's lawyer, the also former councilman Raúl Gallego Parrondo, who resigned in March from his position as councilman after showing solidarity with his colleague, and the former head of Communication of the City Council David Zamorano.

The former PP councilwoman of Móstoles ratified on June 29 the complaint filed against the mayor, detailing to the investigating judge that there were three alleged sexual propositions to which she was subjected and whose rejection resulted in alleged workplace harassment. The complaint is directed against the mayor and against the party itself for alleged crimes of sexual harassment, workplace harassment, injuries, coercion, disclosure of secrets, and assault against moral integrity.

The complainant's lawyer, Antonio Suárez-Valdés, described his client's appearance as "an absolutely credible, coherent, and very appropriate statement," and highlighted that the former councilwoman "was able to illustrate to His Honor how the mayor of Móstoles made sexual propositions to her on three different occasions, in a short period of time." According to the former councilwoman, she rejected three proposals, and as a result of that rejection, a process of alleged workplace harassment began.

Bautista requests nullity

Manuel Bautista has filed an appeal before the Provincial Court of Madrid against the judge's decision that confirmed the admission of the complaint. In this regard, his defense requests the nullity of the order that dismissed the motion for reconsideration and asks that the admission of the complaint be rendered ineffective, understanding that the resolution does not specify which facts can be attributed to the mayor, nor what are the indications that would justify the continuation of the procedure. The lawyer maintains that the court merely makes generic statements about the possible criminal relevance of the reported facts, without explaining how the elements of the investigated crimes concur.

The appeal also questions that the court found sufficient evidence to continue with the investigation. The defense states that the specific facts imputed to Bautista are not specified, nor are the proceedings carried out that support the existence of a criminal offense. Another of the main arguments of the appeal focuses on the validity of the complaint. Furthermore, the defense also maintains that it was filed without the special power of attorney required by article 277 of the Criminal Procedure Law and argues that said defect was incurable, so the court should never have admitted it for processing.