G.R. No. 167278 - Valera vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Petitioner Gil A. Valera was appointed Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs in charge of the Revenue Collection Monitoring Group on July 13, 2001; he took his oath on August 3, 2001 and assumed his post on August 7, 2001.

On December 21, 2001 the Bureau of Customs, through petitioner, filed Civil Case No. 01-102504 in the RTC of Manila to collect PHP 37,195,859.00 in unpaid duties and taxes against SAMC for use of fraudulent tax credit certificates.
On January 16, 2002 a writ of preliminary attachment issued and was implemented; SAMC's raw materials, finished products and plant equipment were attached.
Petitioner entered into a compromise agreement with SAMC under which SAMC would pay the PHP 37,195,859.00 in thirty equal monthly installments.

On August 20, 2003 Director Eduardo Matillano of the CIDG filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman alleging: compromise of the SAMC case without proper authority in violation of Section 2316 of the Tariff and Customs Code and without Presidential approval in violation of Executive Order No. 156 as amended by E.O. No. 38; pecuniary interest and involvement in Cactus Cargoes Systems, Inc. (CCSI) and causing employment of brother-in-law Ariel Manongdo in violation of R.A. No. 3019 and R.A. No. 6713; and unauthorized travel to Hong Kong in violation of applicable Executive Orders and Bureau guidelines.
The administrative complaint was docketed as OMB-C-A-03-0379-J.

On November 12, 2003 Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo inhibited himself by memorandum and directed Special Prosecutor Dennis M. Villa-Ignacio to act in his stead.
Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio found possible concession highly prejudicial to the government and issued an Order placing petitioner on preventive suspension for six months without pay pending administrative investigation.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the preventive suspension on March 19, 2004 and, after the lapse of time for resolution, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 83091) on March 29, 2004.

On June 14, 2004 Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio inhibited himself; OMB-C-A-03-0379-J was assigned to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB-MOLEO) represented by Orlando C. Casimiro.
On June 25, 2004 the Special First Division of the Court of Appeals set aside the Special Prosecutor’s preventive suspension order and directed him to desist from further action in OMB-C-A-03-0379-J; the Office of the Ombudsman appealed that interlocutory CA decision to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 164250).

The respondent Deputy Ombudsman rendered a Decision (dated August 30, 2004) finding petitioner administratively liable for grave misconduct on three grounds: (i) compromising the SAMC case without proper authority in violation of Section 2316 and Section 4(d) of E.O. No. 156 as amended by E.O. No. 38; (ii) causing employment of his brother-in-law with CCSI in violation of Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 3019; and (iii) traveling to Hong Kong without complying with prescribed guidelines.
The Decision decreed dismissal from th...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether petitioner committed grave misconduct by entering into the compromise agreement with SAMC without proper authority in violation of Section 2316 of the Tariff and Customs Code and without prior approval of the President as required by Section 4(d) of E.O. No. 156 as amended by E.O. No. 38.
Whether petitioner committed grave misconduct by causing or having his brother-in-law accept employment with CCSI, a private enterprise having regular or pending official business with petitioner’s office, in violation of Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 3019.

Whether the definition of “family” in R.A. No. 6713 limits the meaning of “family” in R.A. No. 3019 so that a brother-in-law is excluded from Section 3(d)’s prohibition.
Whether petitioner’s temporary restraining order (TRO) suspending his assumption of office rendered him a private citizen during the TRO period such that the rules on presidential authority to travel abroad did not apply.
Whether petitioner was denied due process because the complaint cited the wrong Executive Order number concerning foreign travel.
Whether the Commissioner’s approval under Section 2401 of the Tariff ...(Subscriber-Only)