CA sustains dismissal of immigration officer

CEBU, Philippines - The Court of Appeals Cebu station has upheld the dismissal from service of an immigration officer who was found guilty of grave misconduct by the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas.

The special 19th division of the appellate court denied the petition for review filed by immigration officer Dilausan Montor against the anti-graft office, National Bureau of Investigation-7 and the complainant Lee Dong Bum for lack of merit.

In a 13-page decision penned by Associate Justice Gabriel Ingles, the court said the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Pelagio Apostol did not commit abuse of discretion to warrant reversal of his findings.

“On the contrary, we find that he acted within the bounds of his powers and authority when he meted petitioner the penalty of dismissal,” the decision reads.

Montor filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court and asked for a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the implementation of the order dismissing him from service.

The anti-graft office in April 25, 2008 found Montor guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal from service. Montor filed a motion for reconsideration but was also denied by the Ombudsman in March 17, 2010.

The NBI-7 operatives arrested Montor in October 2007 during an entrapment operation because of the complaint filed by Korean national Lee Dong Bum.

Lee said he operates a travel agency and facilitates the enrollment of fellow Koreans in local universities. He said a fellow Korean had a problem in his immigration papers prompting him to seek Montor’s assistance.

However, Montor allegedly demanded P500,000 from him. Lee sought the NBI assistance resulting to an entrapment operation and the arrest of Montor.

Montor was charged before the Ombudsman but he refused to submit his counter-affidavit. He contended that the arrest was illegal.

Montor questioned the basis of the anti-graft office in finding him guilty of grave misconduct claiming he was not given due process.

He said the anti-graft body based its decision against him only on one side, thus, violating his constitutional right. But the appellate court sustained the anti-graft office. (FREEMAN)