ChanRobles Virtual law Library
PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
A collection of Philippine laws, statutes and codes not included or cited in the main indices of the Chan Robles Virtual Law Library.
:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 285 -
EXONERATING HERMES J. DORADO OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
This pertains to the administrative case
filed by the Department of Foreign Affairs, hereinafter the
"Department", against Mr. Hermes J. Dorado for misconduct and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Records show that the Italian Chief of Protocol, in his letter dated 28
October 1986 to Ambassador Zaldariaga, requested the waiver of
diplomatic immunity on respondent Dorado, who was Second Secretary of
the Philippine Embassy at the time. The Italian Chief of Protocol
claimed that respondent unduly interfered with the police while the
latter was conducting an investigation into the alleged illegal
business transaction of DPC Enterprise, as Filipino registered company.
The Italian authorities maintained that the DPC Enterprise facilitated
the remittance of Filipino contract workers' in violation of Italian
currency laws.
Investigation showed that when the Italian police attempted to search
the residence at Via Archemide St., the place where DPC was supposed to
be conducting its illegal activities, respondent invoked diplomatic
immunity. The residence in question was also the home of the DPC
representative to Rome, a certain Mr. Danilo Cordova. The claim of
respondent that the apartment was registered in his name was disputed
by the Italian Foreign Ministry since there was no advise from the
Philippine embassy that said apartment was being rented by respondent
as a second residence. It was also claimed by the Chief of the Italian
Protocol that respondent is aware of the illegal transactions being
committed by DPC. The Philippine Embassy, subsequently, received
numerous complaints against DPC from Filipino contract workers in Rome
who reported that the money which they entrusted to the DPC
representative for remittance to the Philippines never reached their
beneficiaries. Respondent, for his part, denied all these allegations
in his telex to the Board of Foreign Service Administration dated 24
October 1986 and in his letter dated 10 March 1987.
Pending investigation of the case by the Board of Foreign Service
Administration (BFSA), respondent was transferred to the Philippine
Embassy in Bonn without the issue of waiver of his immunity having been
resolved.
On 20 October 1987, the Ad Hoc Committee created to investigate the
matter found that a prima facie case existed against respondent but
recommended to the Board the dismissal of the charges against
respondent for lack of interest on the part of the complainants to
pursue the case. However, the Board, in its Resolution dated 10 January
1989, rejected the above recommendation and, instead, took cognizance
of the complaint against respondent. The case was then assigned to the
Board's investigation Committee No. 1 headed by Assistant Secretary
Vicente De Vera.
In the meantime, however, a report from Ambassador Cesar Espiritu of
the Philippine Embassy in Bonn was received by the Board regarding the
complaint of some Filipinos and German nationals who applied for
Certificates of Legal Capacity to contract marriage with said Embassy.
It was alleged that respondent had been collecting fees from them for
translation in German of the Certificates of Legal Capacity and cost of
photocopying of the supporting documents without receipts.
After finding that there exists a prima facie case against respondent,
Mr. de Vera, on 16 January 1989, formally charged respondent with
misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
pursuant to the provisions of P.D. 807 and R.A. 708.
The only issue in the instant case is whether or not the actuations of
respondent in Rome and in Bonn constitute misconduct within the purview
of par. 4, Sec. 36b of P.D. 807 in relation to Part B, Sec. 1(b),
Title IV of R.A. 708, as amended.
Misconduct has been defined as a transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross
negligence by the public officer. It implies a wrongful intention and
not a mere error of judgment (in re: Impeachment of Horrilleno, 43
Phil. 214).
In addition to the high demand for high physical, mental and moral
qualifications, foreign service officers are further required to
observe a standard of personal and official conduct. These norms are
provided in Sec. 464, Book III of the Foreign Service Code of 1983.
Pertinent to the present case is the norm set forth in Sec. 464 (k)
which provides:
"Engaging in Business and Allied Transactions. — No officer or employee
including members of their families in the post, shall engage in
business in his own name or through the agency or any other person in
the country to which he is accredited or residing.
Neither shall they act as attorney, merchant, broker, factor or agent
while holding office. Nor shall he permit the use of his name for
business reference.
Officers and employees shall not have any remunerative investment in
the country to which they are accredited, excepting investments
acquired previous to knowledge or assignment. This prohibition shall
apply to the owning of real estate, bonds, shares, stocks, and
mortgages,"
On the basis of the foregoing, respondent's relationship, if any, with
DPC may be assessed accordingly.
From the evidence adduced, the extent of respondent's participation in
the activities of DPC does not sufficiently establish his alleged
financial or business interest in DPC. Neither was there proof
presented that he was acting as an agent of DPC.
Respondent's acts in connection with DPC consist only of the following:
first, the remittance scheme proposed by DPC which was welcomed by the
Philippine Ambassador to Rome because of the tremendous benefit it
would give to the Filipino community, was assigned to the Respondent
for a study on the matter and its possible operation in conformity with
Italian regulation; second, respondent accompanied the DPC
representative to the Italian Finance Ministry to obtain information on
the mechanics of establishing such a remittance scheme to the Filipino
communities in Naples and Florence was undertaken by him with the
consent of the Ambassador; and, fourth, some transactions were made in
his presence, but, remittance payments were not made through the
respondent but through the DPC representatives. Affidavits were
executed by some seven members of the Filipino Community who availed of
the remittance scheme. The affiants alleged irregularities therein but
did not impute any responsibility to, much less accuse, respondent of
any offense.
With respect to the assertion that respondent violated office rules and
regulations when he rented an apartment on Via Archimede St. without
any official or formal authority, it is difficult to make any
pronouncement on the matter since the records do not indicate nor cite
the particular office rule or regulation supposed to have been violated
by respondent.
Suffice it to state here, however, that respondent did conform with
Italian protocol practice with respect with the lease of living
quarters by accredited diplomats. Respondent registered the lease with
the Internal Police of Italy as required. He also informed said
officials that he was a diplomatic officer of the Philippine Embassy,
and apprised Charge d' Affaires Victor Garcia III that he was renting
the apartment on Via Archemide. None of these actions indicate willful
violations of rules but rather adherence thereto by the respondent.
The accusations against the respondent arising from the operation of a
xerox machine in Bonn and the allegations of various complainants
applying for legal capacity to marry that they were charged
unreasonable fees for translation and photocopying services apparently
arose from a misunderstanding. It was amply explained by the respondent
that the complainant were being charged for the costs of the
photocopying documents and not for translation since the certificates
were issued in both English and German. Receipts have also been duly
issued by the respondent. Moreover, complainants, have desisted from
pursuing the charges apparently because of a loss of interest or for
having been satisfied by the clarification made by the respondent.
Respondent's actions under these circumstances cannot be considered as
the conduct punishable under applicable laws, rules and
regulations.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Hermes J. Dorado is hereby
EXONERATED from the instant charges.
DONE in the City of Manila this
2nd of June in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and ninety-two.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.