Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

VALERA v.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,


G.R. No. 167278, February 27, 2008

Facts:

 Atty. Gil A. Valera was appointed by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as Deputy
Commissioner of Customs in charge of the Revenue Collection Monitoring Group on July
13, 2001.
 he filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a preliminary attachment for the
collection of unpaid duties and taxes against Steel Asia Manufacturing Corporation
(SAMC)
 Petitioner and 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 duties and taxes sought to be collected in the civil case
 On August 20, 2003, the Director of the Criminal Investigation and Detention Group of the
Philippine National Police, Eduardo Matillano, filed a letter-complaint against petitioner
with the Ombudsman disclosing the he committed an administrative offense of Grave
Misconduct for entering into a compromise agreement with SAMC without authority from
Bureau of Customs and approval from the President. He also directly and indirectly had
financial or pecuniary interest in the Cactus Cargoes Systems, Inc. (CCSI) which assisted
the employment of his brother-in-law with the said entity. Investigation also showed that
he traveled to Hongkong with his family without proper authority from the office of the
President.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Valera have committed grave misconduct.

Held: Yes

 Atty. Valera was found guilty of committing grave misconduct for entering into a
compromise agreement with SAMC without proper authority from Bureau of Customs and
approval from the President
 Conflict of interest in recommending the employment of his brother-in-law with the CCSI
which a brokerage firm with regular transactions with the Bureau of Custom.
 traveling to abroad without necessary documents in accordance with the guidelines to
travel abroad for private purposes of public officials
OMBUDSMAN v. DE LEON,
G.R. No. 154083, February 27, 2013

Facts:
 Graft Investigation Officer Dante D. Tornilla of the Fact Finding Investigation Bureau
(FFIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman conducted an investigation acting on a report of
illegal quarrying being committed in the Municipality of Baras, Rizal and pursuant to a
mission order dated April 17, 1998.
 On June 8, 1998, Tornilla filed his report to Ombudsman, confirming the illegal quarrying
and recommended for preliminary investigation against Baras Municipal Mayor Roberto
Ferrera, Baras Municipal Planning and Coordinator Jonathan Llagas, and property owner
Venancio Javier for the probable violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Administrative proceedings for violations of the Civil
Service Rules be also undertaken.
 DILG Resident Ombudsman Rudiger G. Falcis II sought in his report and recommendation
dated July 13, 1998, the inclusion in the investigation of De Leon as the Provincial
Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO) and as concurrently the Chairman
of the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board (PMRB) of Rizal. After the preliminary
investigation, Graft Investigation Officer II Edgardo V. Geraldez of the FFIB, Office of the
Ombudsman, issued a decision dated April 29, 1999, dismissing the complaint against all
the respondents for lack of substantial evidence. However, Assistant Ombudsman
Aportadera, Jr. recommended the disapproval of the said decision. Ombudsman Desierto
approved the recommendation of Assistant Ombudsman Aportadera, Jr.
 The case was then referred to Atty. Sabino M. Cruz, Resident Ombudsman for the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), who ultimately submitted a
memorandum on October 20, 1999, duly approved by the Ombudsman, finding De Leon
liable for gross neglect of duty.

Issue: Whether or not De Leon should be liable for gross neglect of duty.

Held: Yes.

 De Leon was guilty of gross neglect in not performing the act expected of him as the
PENRO under the circumstances obtaining. He could not feign ignorance of the
Government’s current efforts to control or prevent environmental deterioration from all
hazards. However, he chose to be passive despite clear indications of the illegal quarrying
activities that had been first brought to his official attention
 He dispatched two of his subordinates to verify the report of quarrying but did not take
further action on the presence of earthmoving equipment as observed by his subordinates.
 The presence of the earth moving equipment would have quickly alerted him to the high
probability of their being used in quarrying activities at the site. It should have led him to
take further actions, including personally inspecting the site himself. By merely denying
having granted any permit or unwarranted benefit to any quarry operator, he seemingly
considered the report of his subordinates satisfactory.