THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219320. June 16, 2021.]
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-REVENUE INTEGRITY PROTECTION SERVICE, petitioner,vs. DIONISITO R. VALLES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 16, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 219320 (DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-REVENUE INTEGRITY PROTECTION SERVICE, petitioner v. DIONISITO R. VALLES, respondent). — To substantiate a claim of grave misconduct against a public officer, the misconduct must be qualified by any of the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule, which must be proven with substantial evidence. This Court also looks into the presence of ill or selfish motives to determine the nature and gravity of the offense.
This Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 and Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals, which modified the Office of the Ombudsman's Decision 4 and Order 5 and downgraded the earlier finding of grave misconduct to simple misconduct.
This case arose from a Joint Complaint-Affidavit 6 filed before the Office of the Ombudsman by the Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) against Dionisito R. Valles (Valles), Nicolas L. Bejar (Bejar), and Virgilio C. Vergara (Vergara), who all worked at the Bureau of Customs.
DOF-RIPS alleged that on November 30, 2006, a 1 x 40-foot container van from Japan, which was declared to carry used vehicle parts, arrived at the Port of Manila. The container van was coded "RED," thus requiring a mandatory physical examination or spot checking. Valles, a customs operation officer, examined the van and later recommended its release. 7
DOF-RIPS added that on December 8, 2006, Bejar, a principal customs examiner, and Vergara, a principal customs appraiser, both approved Valles's recommendation to release the container van. The shipment was released to Dan Vill Forwarders with its seal intact. 8 That same day, the shipment was intercepted in San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, and an inspection revealed that the container van had undeclared items, prompting its return to South Harbor, Manila. 9
On December 18, 2006, the Port of Manila District Collector ordered the seizure and detainment of the shipment "for the conduct of a 100% examination." 10 The following declared and undeclared items were found inside the container van:
1. six (6) units, used motorcycle (1 unit, used 250 cc Honda motorcycle; 1 unit, used 50 cc Honda Dio; 1 unit, used 50 cc Yamaha mate; and 1 unit, used 50 cc Honda DJ-1);
2. 179 pieces, various used tires;
3. 4 pieces, high beam suspensions;
4. 5 pieces, used axles;
5. 12 pieces, used compressors;
6. 10 pieces, used starters; and
7. 1 piece, used Suzuki Chassis11
On March 26, 2007, the Bureau of Customs issued a Decision 12 against Dan Vill Forwarders, forfeiting 13 the undeclared items in favor of the government.
On April 20, 2007, 14 DOF-RIPS, upon the Bureau of Customs' recommendation, 15 directed Valles, Bejar, and Vergara to explain their involvement in the processing of the smuggled items consigned to Dan Vill Forwarders. Valles, 16 Bejar, 17 and Vergara 18 submitted their respective written explanations.
Valles explained that when he went to the examination area to inspect the cargo, he found three "burly looking" 19 men who told him that the cargo's release papers had already been signed, and that he did not need to inspect it. Valles claimed that he tried to protest, but one of the men threatened him. Out of fear, he went home early that day, but when he returned to his office the following day, he saw the same three men. Valles said the men forced him to submit his findings to his supervisors. Fearing for his safety, he did as they told him. 20
A week later, Valles added, he learned about the seized shipment and only then realized that the cargo contained undeclared items. 21
Valles attached an Affidavit 22 from Nomer Salas (Salas), a customs broker, to corroborate his testimony. Salas wrote: CAIHTE
4. That while at the Office of Mr. Dionisito Valles at around 10:00 in the morning, I recall having seen three (3) male persons with guns on their waists talking with Mr. Dionisito Valles. I was only about a meter away from them. While thereat, I heard the three (3) of them intimidating and threatening Mr. Dionisito Valles, the infliction upon him [of] body injuries should he [fail] to release on that day their importation on used spare parts by uttering the following words, to wit:
"PAG HINDI MO PINIRMAHAN ANG RELEASE PAPERS NG IMPORTATION NAMIN ON USED SPARE PARTS MAY MANGYAYARI SA IYO."
5. That at the time, the three (3) male persons were threatening Mr. Dionisito Valles, the infliction upon him of body injuries, Mr. Dionisito Valles was aware that the three (3) male persons were armed with guns[.] 23
For his part, Bejar explained that as a principal examiner, he relied on the findings of the assigned customs examiner, Valles in this case, because it was not his duty to physically examine the cargos tagged for inspection. 24 He continued that Valles's report was "clean" and did not trigger the need for reinspection. He denied being negligent in his duties. 25
Meanwhile, Vergara explained that as a principal appraiser, he only assessed the imposable taxes and duties based on the examiner's report on the import entry. He said he had no duty to go beyond what was written on the report and personally validate every entry. 26
Finding their explanation unsatisfactory, DOF-RIPS filed the Joint Complaint-Affidavit against the three for violation of Republic Act Nos. 3019 and 6713, the Revised Penal Code, and Section 2503 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended. 27
On May 23, 2011, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a Decision 28 dismissing Valles from the service for grave misconduct, and suspending Bejar and Vergara for six months for simple neglect of duty.
Among others, the Office of the Ombudsman did not believe Valles's allegation that he was threatened by three men, given that government offices are heavily guarded and no one corroborated his claim. 29 It ruled that Valles failed to examine the cargo and deceived his superiors for not mentioning the undeclared items in his report. 30
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, having been found guilty of GRAVE MISCONDUCT,DIONISITO R. VALLES is hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification to hold public office.
ON THE OTHER HAND, having been found guilty of SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY, NICOLAS L. BEJAR and VIRGILIO C. VERGARA are hereby SUSPENDED from office for SIX (6) MONTHS without pay.
The Honorable Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is hereby directed [to] implement the subject Decision with the request to promptly submit to this Office, thru, the Central Records Division, 2nd Floor Ombudsman Building, Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City, a compliance report, indicating therein the subject OMB case number.
Compliance is respectfully enjoined consistent with Section 15 (3) of RA 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989.
So Ordered. 31 (Emphasis in the original)
Valles moved for reconsideration, 32 but the Office of the Ombudsman denied this in a January 30, 2012 Order. 33 Its dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, let the Verified Motion for Reconsideration filed by DIONISITO R. VALLES be DENIED.
The Honorable Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is hereby directed to implement the subject ORDER with a request to promptly submit to this Office, thru, the Central Records Division, 2nd Floor Ombudsman Building, Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City, a compliance report indicating therein the subject OMB case number.
Compliance is respectfully enjoined consistent with Section 15 (3) of RA 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989.
So Ordered. 34 (Emphasis in the original)
Valles filed a Petition for Review, 35 after which the Court of Appeals issued a December 15, 2014 Decision 36 finding him guilty of simple misconduct and downgrading the penalty of dismissal to a three-month suspension without pay.
The Court of Appeals agreed that Valles was administratively liable, but deemed his misconduct as only simple. It noted that the Office of the Ombudsman failed to allege and prove that Valles's misconduct was tainted with corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rule, as to qualify the misconduct as grave. 37
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated May 23, 2011 and the Order dated January 30, 2012 of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-A-07-0564-L is hereby MODIFIED. Accordingly, petitioner Dionisito R. Valles is found GUILTY of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT and is meted out the penalty of SUSPENSION for THREE(3) MONTHS without pay.
SO ORDERED. 38 (Emphasis in the original)
DOF-RIPS, through the Office of the Solicitor General, moved for reconsideration 39 of the Court of Appeals Decision. The Office of the Ombudsman also moved to intervene 40 and have the Decision partially reconsidered. 41
In a June 30, 2015 Resolution, 42 the Court of Appeals denied all three Motions: DETACa
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Court resolves to DENY for lack of merit the following: (i) OSG's Motion for Reconsideration dated January 21, 2015; (ii) respondent's Omnibus Motion to Intervene dated January 20, 2015; and (iii) Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated January 20, 2015.
SO ORDERED. 43 (Emphasis in the original)
Hence, DOF-RIPS filed this Petition 44 against Valles.
Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in finding respondent liable only for simple misconduct and not grave, claiming that substantial evidence was presented to support its allegations against respondent. 45
Petitioner asserts that respondent's failure to physically inspect the cargo but making it appear that the cargo underwent the normal inspection process was a willful intention "to violate and disregard established Bureau of Customs rules." 46
Echoing the Office of the Ombudsman, petitioner likewise casts doubt if respondent was really threatened. In any case, petitioner says he could have reported the threats when he submitted his report to his superiors, as these threats were no longer present by then. 47
In his Comment, 48 respondent claims that the Petition raises questions of fact which are generally not allowed in a Rule 45 petition. He also notes that petitioner failed to mention that its case falls under any of the accepted exceptions to the general rule. 49
Nevertheless, respondent posits that the Court of Appeals did not err in downgrading the misconduct from grave to simple, as petitioner failed to allege, let alone prove, any of the qualifying elements. 50
In its Reply, 51 petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals misapprehended a fact, making its Petition fall within the recognized exceptions for a Rule 45 petition. 52 It then reiterates that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Office of the Ombudsman, as respondent's liability for grave misconduct was duly proven with the required substantial evidence. 53
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding respondent Dionisito R. Valles liable for simple misconduct instead of grave misconduct.
The Petition must be denied.
A review of appeals filed before this Court is "not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion[.]" 54 Under the Rules of Court, only questions of law 55 should be raised in Rule 45 petitions. "It is not this Court's function to analyze or weigh all over again evidence that has already been considered in the lower courts." 56
Nonetheless, exceptions to the general rule exist, as listed in Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr.: 57
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. 58 (Citations omitted)
Pascual v. Burgos59 instructs that the party raising a question of fact has the burden of clearly proving that the case squarely falls under one of the recognized exceptions to the general rule. The party invoking the exception takes on the additional burden of proving the necessity of a factual review. "Mere assertion and claim that the case falls under the exceptions do not suffice." 60
Here, petitioner belatedly claims in its Reply that its Petition falls under one of the recognized exceptions, as the Court of Appeals misapprehended a fact. 61 This argument cannot stand.
Petitioner failed to prove that the Court of Appeals' assailed issuances were based on a misapprehension of fact. As Pascual emphasizes, mere assertions will not suffice. Worse, petitioner failed to convince this Court of a pressing need to again analyze the evidence submitted before the Court of Appeals. Reiterating the same arguments that the lower courts have already ruled on will not prove the need of a factual review. aDSIHc
Nonetheless, a careful review of the records leads this Court to conclude that the Court of Appeals made no error.
Misconduct is "any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of [their] office, willful in character. The term embraces acts which the office holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act." 62 It is one of the grounds for disciplinary action under the Administrative Code. 63 To be an administrative offense, the alleged misconduct should be directly connected to the public officer's performance of official duties. 64
Misconduct is either simple or grave. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Espina, 65 this Court expounded on the difference between the two:
There are two (2) types of misconduct, namely: grave misconduct and simple misconduct. In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest. Without any of these elements, the transgression of an established rule is properly characterized as simple misconduct only. 66 (Citations omitted)
Thus, to substantiate a claim of grave misconduct, any of the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be proven with substantial evidence. 67 Additionally, this Court also looks into the presence of ill or selfish motives to determine the nature and gravity of the offense. 68
Here, the Court of Appeals found respondent liable only for simple misconduct because petitioner failed to allege that respondent's failure to examine the cargo was spurred by corruption or that there was a manifest intent to violate the law or established Bureau of Customs procedures:
To reiterate, this Court is one with the respondent Office of the Ombudsman in finding that petitioner Valles must be held administratively liable for his failure to examine the subject cargo and on his mere reliance on the import entry as to the contents of the container van. However, this Court finds and so rules that petitioner's act or omission only constitutes Simple Misconduct, not Grave Misconduct, this is so because of the total absence of evidence showing that the said act or omission was attended by elements that would qualify Simple Misconduct to Grave Misconduct (namely: corruption, clear intent to violate the laws or flagrant disregard of established rule). 69
The Court of Appeals pointed out that petitioner failed to allege, let alone prove, the elements that would substantiate its charge of Grave Misconduct against respondent:
As to the element of corruption, there is no allegation, much less, proof, on record that the act or omission of petitioner Valles was motivated by financial or material considerations. As to the element of clear intent to violate the law, this Court notes the fact that petitioner Valles actually went to the Bureau of Customs Designated Examination Area to conduct the required examination but was prevented from conducting the examination by armed men who threatened him harm if he will open the subject van. Petitioner's claim was, in fact, corroborated by Nomer Salas, a customs broker, who executed an Affidavit declaring that he was present at the time of the incident.
As to the element of flagrant disregard of established rule, the Supreme Court in the case of Monico K. Imperial, Jr. vs. Government Service Insurance System, ruled that "flagrant disregard of rules is a ground that jurisprudence has already touched upon. It has been demonstrated, among others, in the instances when there had been open defiance of a customary rule; in the repeated voluntary disregard of established rules in the procurement of supplies; in the practice of illegally collecting fees more than what is prescribed for delayed registration of marriages; when several violations or disregard of regulations governing the collection of government funds were committed; and when the employee arrogated unto herself responsibilities that were clearly beyond her given duties. The common denominator in these cases was the employee's propensity to ignore the rules as clearly manifested by his or her actions." Based on the foregoing jurisprudential guidelines, this Court finds and so rules that the element of flagrant disregard of established rule is absent in the instant ease.
xxx xxx xxx
Accordingly, this Court rules that in view of the absence of allegation and sufficient evidence of corruption and flagrancy independent of the substantial evidence of petitioner's misconduct of failure to conduct the requisite physical examination over the cargo, petitioner Valles should be held liable for Simple Misconduct only. Simply put, there is no evidence to support the elements of "corruption," "clear intent to violate the law" or "flagrant disregard of established rule" to qualify the misconduct as grave." 70 (Citations omitted)
This Court notes petitioner's silence on the corroborative evidence presented by respondent. It did not bother to debunk the testimonies of respondent and his witness, Salas, that respondent was threatened by three men and forcibly ordered not to examine the cargo. Instead, it only said that the examination area was well guarded. 71
For petitioner's abject failure to prove any of the elements of grave misconduct, the Court of Appeals did not err in holding respondent liable only for simple misconduct. ETHIDa
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The December 15, 2014 Decision and June 30, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 125761 are AFFIRMED. Respondent Dionisito R. Valles is found GUILTY of simple misconduct, for which he is SUSPENDED for three months without pay.
SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 30-45.
2. Id. at 10-19. The December 15, 2014 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 12761 was penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles of the Special Ninth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. Id. at 21-24. The June 30, 2015 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 125761 was penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles of the Former Special Ninth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4. Id. at 67-82. The May 23, 2011 Decision in OMB-C-A-07-0564-L was penned by Graft Investigation & Prosecution Officer 11 Francisca A. Maullon-Serfino, reviewed by Vice Chairman of Task Force Green Lane Elvira C. Chua, and approved by Acting Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro.
5. Id. at 83-89. The January 30, 2012 Order in OMB-C-A-07-0564-L was penned by Graft Investigation & Prosecution Officer 11 Francisca A. Maullon-Serfino and approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.
6. Id. at 90-101.
7. Id. at 91-92.
8. Id. at 92.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 92-93.
11. Id.
12. Id. at 144-149.
13. Id. at 148-149.
14. Id. at 107-108.
15. Id. at 109.
16. Id. at 110-111.
17. Id. at 114-116.
18. Id. at 117-119.
19. Id. at 110.
20. Id. at 110-111.
21. Id. at 111.
22. Id. at 112-113.
23. Id. at 112.
24. Id. at 114.
25. Id. at 115.
26. Id. at 117-118.
27. Id. at 99.
28. Id. at 67-82.
29. Id. at 77.
30. Id. at 78.
31. Id. at 80-81.
32. Id. at 163-169.
33. Id. at 83-89.
34. Id. at 88-89.
35. Id. at 171-190.
36. Id. at 10-19.
37. Id. at 15-16.
38. Id. at 19.
39. Id. at 269-275.
40. Id. at 276-281.
41. Id. at 282-286.
42. Id. at 21-24.
43. Id. at 23.
44. Id. at 30-50.
45. Id. at 36.
46. Id. at 38.
47. Id. at 38-39.
48. Id. at 303-321.
49. Id. at 308-310.
50. Id. at 314-316.
51. Id. at 351-363.
52. Id. at 352.
53. Id. at 353-354.
54. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Sec. 6.
55. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Sec. 1 provides:
SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
56. Padilla, Jr. v. Malicsi, 795 Phil. 794, 802 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
57. 269 Phil. 225 (1990) [Per J. Bidin, Third Division].
58. Id. at 232.
59. 776 Phil. 167 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
60. Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 184 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
61. Rollo, p. 352.
62. Puscual v. Martin, 589 Phil. 90, 101 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
63. ADM. CODE, Book V, Title I-A, ch. 7, Sec. 46 provides:
SECTION 46. Discipline:General Provisions. . . . .
xxx xxx xxx
(b) The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action:
xxx xxx xxx
(4) Misconduct[.]
64. Ganzon v. Arlos, 720 Phil. 104, 114 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].
65. 807 Phil. 529 (2017) [Per Curiam, First Division].
66. Id. at 541.
67. Id. at 479.
68. Faeldonea v. Civil Service Commission, 435 Phil. 410, 415 (2002) [Per J. Kapunan, En Banc].
69. Rollo, p. 15.
70. Id. at 16-17.
71. Id. at 38.