ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 134780. February 8, 1999]

FELIX A. SOROTE vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 8, 1999.

G.R. No. 134780 [UDK-12521] (Felix A. Sorote v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al.)

Petitioner who was a Customs Inspector was charged administratively with grave misconduct for authorizing and/or causing the unloading/discharge of ceramic wares, wall d�cor and table d�cor on board M/V Fortune Freighter, a Vietnamese vessel, while berthing at Sasa Wharf, Davao City, on 13 February 1996, without the requisite documents such as Permit to Discharge, Boat Note and receipts evidencing payments for their issuance. Petitioner in an attempt to exculpate himself argued that: (1) Permit to Discharge was not with him because he submitted this and other documents to Administrative Officer Jaime S. Mostrales; (2) per Boat Note No. 28539707, series, questioned articles were duly noted by the Bureau of Customs; and (3) articles were released to importers after payment of taxes, hence, no smuggling occurred.

Notwithstanding these defenses, the Ombudsman found him guilty of grave misconduct because: (1) Permit to Discharge was never shown; (2) Administrative Officer Jaime Mostrales denied that Permit to Discharge was submitted to him; (3) Boat Note No. 28539707-95 dated 14 February 1996 was sans corresponding Bureau of Customs Official receipt evidencing payment for its issuance; and, (4) while customs duties and taxes were paid, payment was made on 7 March 1996 whereas unloading and discharge occurred on 13 February 1996; thus, payment was late for 22 days. Petitioner was meted the penalty of dismissal with cancellation of his eligibility, the forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and the disqualification from re-employment in the government service.

Petitioner thereafter sought relief with the Supreme Court by filing a petition for review on certiorari; however, petition was filed late and payment of fees was insufficient. Initially, the Court denied the petition because of technical infirmities.1 [15 June 1998 Resolution of First Division.] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration praying that the procedural laws, be construed liberally, but again, the Court denied the motion.2[2 September 1998 Resolution of First Division.] Petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration arguing the merits of this case and pleading that considering the penalty imposed, it would be too harsh if his case would be dismissed by mere technicalities.

We reconsider. In applying strictly the procedural laws, a grave injustice may be committed against the petitioner. His main defense is that with the release of cargoes to purported owners, no smuggling occurred and therefore all the documents (Boat Note and Permit to Discharge) were in order because no cargoes without necessary papers would be discharged. While at this stage, we are not exculpating petitioner, having worked with the government for more than twenty (20) years, we can at least listen to him once again.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the second motion for reconsideration is GRANTED and the petition is REINSTATED. Conformably with our ruling in Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 128742, promulgated 16 September 1998, this case is referred to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition.

Petitioner's letter dated October 21, 1998 to Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa begging for compassion and for referral of his case to the Court En Banc is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE