BIR Ruling [DA-186-01]

October 16, 2001 BIR RULING [DA-186-01] Ms. Lucina F. Galera Acting Assistant Commissioner Human Resource Development Service M a d a m : This refers to your request for an opinion on the claim for retirement and terminal leave benefits of MR. TEOPISTO A. SAPITULA (Sapitula for brevity), in light of the Order dated February 29, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region, Branch 95, Quezon City, (RTC Q.C., Br. 95 for brevity) and the Decision dated March 13, 2000 of the Office of the Ombudsman. The facts, as established in the said Decision, are as follows: The Bureau of Internal Revenue filed a complaint for violation of R.A. 7080 (Plunder), as amended by R.A. 7659 against Sapitula and other BIR officials and private individuals before the Department of Justice (DOJ for brevity) docketed as I.S. No. 97-291 entitled "Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Dominga S. Manalili, Teopisto A. Sapitula, Joel Dp. Marcelo, Reynaldo S. Enriquez, Gil R. Erencio, Luis S. Se, Jr., Norma D. Solomon, and Lilia B. Organo." On July 16, 1997, the DOJ issued a Resolution dismissing the offense charged against Sapitula. It found that: "Sapitula's questioned signatures appearing on the Landbank checks issued and cancelled and the specimen signature card in comparison with the specimen/standard signatures of the subject as per result of the NBI questioned document report, indicates that the questioned and specimen (sic.)/standard signature card of Sapitula were not written by one and the same person, thus, giving credence to the claim of Sapitula that the signatures are forgeries. Records reveal that not even one of the other respondents implicated him in the scam." The said Resolution was eventually reversed by the Ombudsman when the cases were forwarded to it finding probable cause to indict Sapitula. it filed the instant case before the Sandiganbayan. The Honorable Supreme Court later divested Sandiganbayan of its jurisdiction and ordered the filing of the said case before the regular courts. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 95, in its Order dated February 16, 2001, dismissed the information against Sapitula, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, as the Court is not satisfied that probable cause exits (sic!) to indict accused Teopisto Sapitula, the Court is constrained to dismiss, as it hereby dismisses, the information against accused Teopisto Sapitula. SO ORDERED." Another case against Sapitula was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman entitled "FACT-FINDING and INTELLIGENCE BUREAU vs. TEOPISTO SAPITULA, et al.," docketed as OMB-ADM-0-97-0459 for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct. In its Decision dated March 13, 2000, the Ombudsman pronounced that Sapitula's administrative liability has not been established by substantial evidence. The dispositive portion reads: "xxx xxx xxx The complaint against respondents TEOPISTO SAPITULA and NORMA SOLOMON is hereby DISMISSED, for insufficiency of evidence. SO ORDERED." In reply, please be informed that inasmuch as the cases filed against Sapitula had all been dismissed, this Office no longer finds any legal impediment in processing his claim for retirement and terminal leave benefits. This is, of course, without prejudice to the fulfillment of all necessary requisites appurtenant thereto. This ruling is being issued on the basis of the foregoing facts as represented. However, if upon investigation, it will be ascertained that the facts are different, then this ruling shall be considered void. DECcAS Very truly yours, Commissioner of Internal Revenue By: (SGD.) EDMUNDO P. GUEVARA Deputy Commissioner Legal and Internal Group