LTFRB-7 official indicted for ‘negligence’

CEBU, Philippines - The Office of the Ombudsman has indicted a hearing officer of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)-7 before the court after finding probable cause for alleged gross inexcusable negligence.

Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Darius Sagadal held Attorney IV Evelyn Carmelita Misal for trial for allegedly issuing a notice of hearing for the transfer of Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC) and caused its approval despite irregularities of the documents submitted.

“All the elements are present. Respondent is a public officer. She acted with gross inexcusable negligence when she issued the Notice before the notarization of the Deed and Application Form. Her subsequent act of recommending or causing the approval of the transfer of the CPCs gave KR Wheelers Cab, Inc. an unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference,” read the resolution.

Sagadal recommended P30,000 bail for Misal’s temporary liberty while the case is pending before the court.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Felix Lao against Misal for violations of Section 3(e) and (j) of Republic Act 3019 otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Lao was an owner of CPCs covering 10 taxis which operate within Cebu City.

However, sometime in October 2012, he found out that the CPCs for his three taxis with TSNS numbers 5023, 5024 and 5025 were transferred to KR Wheelers Cab, Inc., without his knowledge and consent.

He alleged the transfer of the CPCs may have been simulated.

On July 3, 2008, he alleged Misal issued a notice of hearing though the required documents for the transfer were not yet notarized.

Misal, for her part, denied approving the transfer of the CPCs claiming the approval is within the power of LTFRB Regional Director.

She, however, claimed that she issued the notice and heard the application for the transfer since there was no opposition to the application and believed that the documents attached to it were being notarized.

With the foregoing facts, Sagadal found enough grounds to hold Misal liable for Section 3 (e).

“Respondent cannot escape responsibility by claiming that the application was uncontested; that the documents were pro forma; or that the irregular notarization is not within the ambit of her functions because, as the hearing officer, she has the duty to ensure that the transferor and transferee of the franchises are real and not simulated or at the very least, ensure that the documents submitted are proper. This lapse or neglect on respondent’s part is considered gross inexcusable because it resulted to complainant losing the CPCs for three of his taxis,” read the resolution.

Sagadal however, dismissed the complaint for Section 3(j) filed against Misal since it was not her who actually approved the transfer. Section 3(j) of RA 3019 penalizes those who knowingly approves or grants any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled. (FREEMAN)