SC upholds CA decision in LTO misconduct case

CEBU, Philippines - The Supreme Court has affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals clearing officials of the Land Transportation Office-Cebu from an administrative case for grave misconduct.

Associate Justice Arturo Brion said the CA was right in reversing the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas holding Porferio Mendoza, former director of LTO-7; Marilyn Mendoza Erederos, Mendoza’s niece and secretary; and Catalina Alingasa, LTO clerk, administratively liable.

“We deny the petition. The CA committed no reversible error in setting aside the findings and conclusions of the Deputy Ombudsman on the ground that they were not supported by substantial evidence,” the decision read.

Earlier, former deputy ombudsman for the Visayas Primo Miro filed a petition for review before the SC citing the CA erred in setting aside their decision against Mendoza, Erederos and Alingasa finding them guilty and meting them the penalty of dismissal from the service.

Miro said they have enough evidence to hold the respondents guilty of the administrative case based on the complaints filed by liaison officer of GCY Parts Maricar Huete, liaison officer of Isuzu Cebu, Inc. Ernesto Cantillas, general manager of TBS Trading Leonardo Villaraso and corporate secretary of Penta Star Romeo Climaco, supported by a National Bureau of Investigation progress report.

In their complaint, the private complainants alleged that the respondents made anomalies in the distribution of confirmation certificates, which are a requirement in the processing of documents for the registration of motor vehicle with the LTO, that supposed to be issued free of charge.

They alleged that the confirmation certificates were sold by Alingasa for P2,500 per pad without official receipt. The collections, they said were then remitted to Erederos who, in turn, would remit all the collections to Mendoza.

The respondents, however, denied the allegations. Mendoza said that the confirmation certificates’ actual distribution and processing were assigned to Alingasa and that the processing entails the payment of P40 per confirmation certificate as an administrative fee.

“Payment is only made when the confirmation certificates are filled up and submitted for processing with the LTO, not upon issuance,” he said, adding that he did not give instructions for additional fees for the distribution.

Erederos and Alingasa likewise denied having received nor collected money from the private complainants for the confirmation certificates.

 The CA sided with the respondents saying the affidavits of the complainants were not corroborated by documentary evidence and they also failed to specifically say that respondents personally demanded from them the payment of  P2,500.

 The ruling of the CA was affirmed by Brion. He said based on the evidence presented, he found out that there was no substantial evidence to support the decision of the Ombudsman.

Brion also said that there was likewise no substantial evidence that showed that Alingasa personally demanded the payment for the confirmation certificates.  –(FREEMAN)