GR 167278; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167278; February 27, 2008
ATTY. GIL A. VALERA, CPA-LCB, Deputy Commissioner, Revenue Collection Monitoring Group, Bureau of Customs, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Gil A. Valera, a Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, was administratively charged with Grave Misconduct before the Office of the Ombudsman. The charges stemmed from three main allegations: first, that he entered into a compromise agreement with Steel Asia Manufacturing Corporation (SAMC) for the collection of unpaid customs duties without the required authority from the Customs Commissioner and the President, thereby allegedly causing undue injury to the government; second, that he had a financial interest in a brokerage firm, Cactus Cargoes Systems, by causing the employment of his brother-in-law; and third, that he traveled to Hong Kong without proper authority. The Ombudsman found him guilty and ordered his dismissal.
The procedural journey involved a preventive suspension order issued by a Special Prosecutor acting as Ombudsman, which the Court of Appeals initially set aside. The administrative case was then reassigned to the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB-MOLEO), which proceeded with the investigation and ultimately affirmed the finding of guilt and the penalty of dismissal. The Court of Appeals later upheld this decision, prompting Valera to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and ordering his dismissal from the service.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the assailed decisions and absolving petitioner of the administrative charge. The Court found no substantial evidence to support the finding of Grave Misconduct. On the compromise agreement, the Court ruled that petitioner, as Deputy Commissioner and head of the Revenue Collection Monitoring Group, had the implied authority to enter into such an agreement in the ordinary course of his official functions to settle the collection case. There was no showing he acted with corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. The government was not deprived of revenue, as the compromise aimed to collect the principal sum.
Regarding the alleged financial interest, mere employment of a relative does not, by itself, constitute a violation absent proof that petitioner derived financial gain or that the relative capitalized on the relationship for profit. The charge concerning unauthorized travel was also dismissed, as it was not sufficiently substantiated. The Court emphasized that administrative decisions must be based on substantial evidence, not mere speculation. Since the Ombudsman’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence, its ruling constituted grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner was reinstated with entitlement to backwages and benefits.