(1) On January 30, 2002, Atty. Gil A. Valera, as Deputy Commissioner of Customs, and Steel Asia Manufacturing Corporation (SAMC) entered into a compromise agreement wherein the latter offered to pay on a staggered basis through thirty (30) monthly equal installments the P37,195,859.00 unpaid duties and taxes sought to be collected in the civil case.
(2) On August 20, 2003, the Director of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group of the Philippine National Police (CIDG-PNP), Eduardo Matillano, filed a letter-complaint against petitioner Atty. Gil A. Valera with the Ombudsman.
(3) Eduardo Matillano alleges that Atty. Gil A. Valera had compromised the case against the SAMC without proper authority from the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and without the approval of the President.
- Such illegal acts of Atty. Gil A. Valera indeed caused undue injury to the government and gave the Steel Asia unwarranted benefits in the total uncollected amount of P14,762,467.70.
- Further investigation disclosed that Atty. Gil A. Valera while being a Bureau of Customs official had financial or pecuniary interest in the Cactus Cargoses Systems, Inc. by way of causing the employment of his brother-in-law, Ariel Manongdo.
(4) Respondent Deputy Ombudsman issued a Decision finding the petitioner administratively liable for grave misconduct and decreeing his dismissal from the service, with all the accessory penalties appertaining thereto. It was found that petitioner committed grave misconduct.
Issues:
(I) WoN the petitioner, by entering into the compromise agreement, may have made concessions that may be deemed highly prejudicial to the government, constituting grave misconduct.
(II) WoN the petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct for causing the employment of his brother-in-law with the Cactus Cargoes Systems, Inc. whose principal business involves transactions with the Bureau of Customs in violation of Section 3(d) of RA 3019.
Defense:
(I) Since the case wherein the compromise agreement was entered into was already pending before a regular court, the requirement of prior authority of the Commissioner of Customs to enter into a compromise is not necessary.
(II) Petitioner contends that under Section 3(d) of RA 3019, a brother-in-law is not included within the scope of the word “family” and therefore, he cannot be found liable under the said law. In arguing so, the petitioner refers to the definition of the word “family” found under Section 3(g) of RA 6713, which states:
“SEC. 3. Definition of Terms.—As used in this Act, the term:
x x x
(g) “Family of public officials or employees” means their spouses and unmarried
children under eighteen (18) years of age.”
Held:
(I) The Court notes that SAMC defrauded the government of the amount of P37,195,859.00 in unpaid duties and taxes with the use of fraudulent tax credit certificates that were directly and originally procured by its officials on the basis of inexistent supporting documents. The
legal interest, surcharges, litigation expenses and damages of this principal amount totaled a staggering P14,762,467.70, which petitioner effectively waived through his entering into a compromise agreement with SAMC.
No amount of reasoning can infuse an empty plea to justify this bloodletting.
It is not for any government official to deem it within his complete control to let precious blood flow to the private sphere where it would have been rightfully and lawfully collected by the public through the government.
Petitioner, being a Deputy Commissioner of the Revenue Collection Monitoring Group, should know that his actuations reflect adversely on the integrity and efficiency of his office and erode the faith and confidence of our people in its daily administration. We find that the totality of petitioner’s acts constitutes flagrant disregard of established rules constitutive of grave misconduct.
(II) Petitioner did not deny that Ariel Manongdo is his brother-in-law or that CCSI has regular transactions with his office. It is thus unfortunate that instead of demonstrating that he is
innocent of the charges, the petitioner instead resorted to unavailing
technicalities to disprove the allegations.
What petitioner fails to mention is that RA 6713 itself prohibits the act of public officials and employees during their incumbency to recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a regular or pending official transaction with their office. Certainly, the definition of the word “family” under said law would unduly limit and render meaningless Section 3(d) of RA 3019 if applied to the latter. In fact, family relation is defined under Section 4 of RA 3019 which, according to the said section, “shall include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree.” We need not look beyond the provisions of RA 3019 to hold that a brother-in-law falls within the definition of family under Section 3(d) thereof.
Petition is DENIED.
REPUBLIC ACT No. 3019
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination.
SEC. 4. Prohibition on private individuals.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or close personal relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having some business, transaction, application, request or contract with the government, in which such public official has to intervene. Family relation shall include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The word "close personal relation" shall include close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and professional employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.
Comments
Post a Comment