G.R. No. 221848 , August 30, 2016
Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman, Petitioner, vs. Rey Rueca Castillo, Respondent.

FACTS

On November 14, 1999, Fe Acacio-Tsuji arrived at NAIA with undeclared jewelry valued at ₱1,184,010.00, which was confiscated and stored in the In-Bond Room Section of the Bureau of Customs (BOC). A logbook entry dated November 18, 1999, showed the jewelry was taken out of the In-Bond Room Section at 8:00 p.m. and given to Customs Cashier Judith Vigilia. The entry was signed by respondent Rey Rueca Castillo, then a Customs Security Guard II, and Josephine De Rama Tiñana, a Special Agent I, as witnesses. When Tsuji was authorized to claim the jewelry on October 4, 2005, it could no longer be found. The Field Investigation Office (FIO) filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) charging Castillo and Tiñana with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Grave Misconduct for the premature release of the jewelry without authority. In defense, Castillo claimed he only delivered the jewelry to Vigilia for safekeeping. The OMB found them administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and dismissed them from service with accessory penalties. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the ruling and found Castillo liable only for Simple Misconduct, imposing a three-month suspension. The FIO filed a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Rey Rueca Castillo should be held administratively liable for Grave Misconduct, instead of Simple Misconduct as found by the Court of Appeals.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and held respondent liable for Grave Misconduct. The Court ruled that Castillo acted in flagrant disregard of established rules. As a Customs Security Guard II, it was not his duty nor did he have the authority to remove or release the confiscated jewelry from the In-Bond Room Section to the Cashier. His act of transferring the jewelry without any clearance, authorization from a higher BOC official, or compliance with existing laws and rules for the removal of seized items constituted a usurpation of function. His self-serving claim of doing so for “safekeeping” without sufficient justification, coupled with his admission that such transfer was not within his duties, demonstrated a deliberate violation of established rules. The presence of flagrant disregard of rules, an element of Grave Misconduct, was manifest. Therefore, the penalty of dismissal from service with its accessory penalties, as originally imposed by the Ombudsman, was reinstated.