CA junks exec’s plea over suspension

CEBU, Philippines -  For lack of merit, the Court of Appeals junked a petition of a Bureau of Customs official for the appellate court to nullify an order of the Ombudsman suspending him preventively for six months for his failure to file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

Associate Justice Hakim Abdulwahid said that aside from the fact that the petition was filed prematurely, the petition filed by Maximo dela Peña Reyes, collector IV at BOC, was not the proper remedy.

Reyes is currently stationed at the Port of Cebu as Deputy Collector of Customs.

"It should also be pointed out that the issue raised by petitioner with respect to the finding of strong evidence of guilt relates to factual and/or evidentiary matters, or alleged errors in judgment which are beyond the province of a petition for certiorari. The proper remedy in cases involving error of law or fact, or an error in judgment, is by appeal, and not certiorari," the decision reads.

The Office of the Ombudsman issued an order on May 28, 2013, placing Reyes under preventive suspension for six months without pay pending investigation into the complaints filed against him by the Ombudsman's Field Investigation Office.

The FIO filed a criminal complaint for a violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees against Reyes and his wife, Cristeta, mayor of Malvar, Batangas for their alleged failure to file SALNs in 2001 and 2009. Separate administrative complaints for serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service were filed against Reyes.

The FIO said it conducted a lifestyle check on Reyes and his family since 2011 after receiving the report.

"In the course of said investigation, the FIO allegedly discovered assets belonging to petitioner and his family which were grossly disproportionate to his family's declared income and real properties owned by petitioner which were not reflected in his SALN," the document reads.

On June 20, 2013, Reyes asked the Ombudsman to reconsider the decision, saying it was "oppressive discriminatory and arbitrary."

He claimed that his failure to file his SALNs in 2001 and 2009 was due to "mere inadvertence and oversight and not serious dishonesty or grave misconduct."

He also attributed to his wife the alleged misdeclaration of his assets. He said he relied on her to determine the acquisition cost and any increase in the market value of their assets.

Reyes furthered said his parents were wealthy landowners who donated some of their real estate properties to him when he was still single.

He said that after he filed his motion for reconsideration on June 20, he filed a separate motion for the Ombudsman to resolve his motion for reconsideration the soonest possible time. He cited Section 8, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7 Series of 1990, which says that the hearing officer shall resolve a motion for reconsideration within five days from the date of submission for resolution.

By August, the Ombudsman reportedly still failed to resolve the same, which prompted him to seek refuge with the Court of Appeals.

The appellate court, however, ruled in favor of the Ombudsman.

Abdulwahid said the anti-graft office did not commit any violation. "Contrary to petitioner's assertion, Section 8 mandates the resolution of a motion for reconsideration within five days from the date of submission for resolution, and not from the date of filing of the said motion. Thus, there was no violation on the part of the Ombudsman of its rules, and the instant petition was prematurely filed, since the motion for reconsideration had not yet been submitted for resolution," the decision reads.

Abdulwahid likewise said the preventive suspension is in accordance with the law of the Office of the Ombudsman particularly Section 24 of  RA 6770, which allows the office to suspend any officer or employee preventively pending investigating of the case that officer or employee is facing and with the following conditions: If,  in the Ombudsman's judgment, the evidence of guilt is strong and if the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty.  (FREEMAN)