Un-actionable mistake

This is the case of Atty. Fran, a government official who was charged administratively, among others, for merely doing his duty.

Atty. Fran was an employee of POEA assigned as Officer in Charge of the Operations and Surveillance Division, Anti- Illegal Recruitment, Licensing and Regulation Office under the auspices of the DOLE.

On February 1, 1998, Fran’s office received the complaint of Eddie, an applicant for overseas employment, against the Recruitment Agency of Pedro Chanco (C&M Phils. Inc). Eddie alleged that he was required to pay P20,000 as initial payment of the total recruitment fee of P55,000, before his application as factory worker in Taiwan could be processed. Thus, Atty. Fran decided to conduct an on the spot investigation and surveillance of the agency. The investigation established that a certain Betty, who was not an employee of CMPI, permanently occupied a table of her own at its office and conducted recruitment activities by interviewing, screening and collecting payments and document from prospective applicants of CMPI. She was also associating with the other employees of CMPI and discussing with Chanco’s wife matters relating to status of applicants. As a result of the surveillance, the operatives of Fran’s office and the CIS decided to conduct an entrapment operation of the employees of the agency.

So on February 15, 1998, a joint POEA-CIS team headed by Fran with eight others proceeded to the premises of CMPI to conduct the said operation. They were entertained by Betty who introduced herself as an employee of the agency. After one of the CIS operatives SPO4 Benito submitted his duly filled bio-data form and other documents, Betty told him to pay P7,000 down payment, P20,000 to be paid upon submission of the other requirements and P28,000 payable at the airport prior to departure for Taiwan. When Betty received the money, she was arrested.

During the arrest, Pedro Chanco was not around. But when he arrived, he too was arrested and brought to the CIS headquarters. Atty. Fran honestly believed that Pedro was violating Article 29 of the Labor Code about the prevalent malpractices committed by licensed agencies of simply engaging unregistered employees in their recruitment business like Betty in this case for purposes of collecting money from unwary job seekers, only to deny later that they were its employees in order to escape liability.

Pedro Chanco left the POEA premises at 7:30 p.m. after the termination of the investigation. Subsequently Chanco and Betty were charged with violation of Articles 29, 32, and 34(a) of the Labor Code. But the State Prosecutor found probable cause only against Betty and dismissed all the charges against Chanco.

Aggrieved by his arrest Chanco filed, among others, administrative charges against Atty. Fran for oppression, abuse of authority, gross inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct arising from the entrapment incident. Was Fran guilty?

No. Oppression is an act of cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction, domination or excessive use of authority. Gross inefficiency is closely related to gross negligence that involves a flagrant and palpable breach of duty, or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally. Misconduct is an intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior or manifest corruption especially by government official.

No such acts or omissions as defined have been committed by Atty. Fran. The attendant circumstances gave Fran and the CIS-POEA operatives more than reasonable ground to sustain the belief that Chanco authorized and allowed the illegal activities of Betty inside the agency, thereby violating Article 29 of the Labor Code. Verily the conduct of Fran in arresting Chanco was far from oppressive, malicious, grossly negligent, inefficient or abusive. On the contrary he was just doing his legal duty as government official tasked with enforcing the law. His acts are protected by presumption of good faith which has not been overturned by Chanco. Even mistakes concededly committed by such public officers are not actionable as long as it is not shown that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith (Golangco vs. Fung, G.R. 147640; Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals and Fung G.R. 147762, October 12, 2006).