Ruling against ex-NLRC official affirmed

CEBU, Philippines - The Court of Appeals in Cebu has affirmed the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in the Visayas that found a former executive labor arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission – 8 guilty of simple misconduct.

In his decision, Associate Justice Abraham Borreta denied the petition for review filed by respondent Vito Bose.

“…the petition fails on the merits. The records contain substantial evidence to hold petitioner guilty of simple misconduct,” Borreta’s decision reads.

The appellate court, meanwhile, cleared from charges Assistant Deputy Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago, Director-EIO Edgardo Canton, Graft investigator Fruto Teodorico III and private respondent Jimmy Llanos.

The Ombudsman has found Bose guilty for simple misconduct and suspended him for one month without pay after he released P6,1,66,734.65 to lawyer Audie Arnado, one of the counsels of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Philphos Inc. (NAMASI).

“It appears that NAMASI’s counsel, Atty. Audie Arnado, had moved for the release of the judgment award to himself and submitted a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing him to receive the judgment award in behalf of all the awardees,” the case reads.

But the release was questioned because not all awardees participated in the “execution of the SPA made in favor of Arnado.”

The release stemmed from a labor case NAMASI filed against Philphos, which Bose had handled. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court and was declared final and executory. The tribunal had awarded NAMASI P6,1,66,734.65.

NAMASI said that upon learning that Philphos paid the amount to NLRC, they went to NLRC to get the award but they found out Bose released the aforementioned amount to Arnado.

It was Llanos who filed a complaint against Bose before the Office of the Ombudsman.

In his decision, Borreta said Bose should have been extra careful as the claims involved money.

“Applying the definition of misconduct as earlier discussed, petitioner has been remiss in his duty as labor arbiter to release the award only to be named beneficiaries when he released the award even without the signature of all the claimants,” he said. — (FREEMAN)