Boots fined for ‘misconduct’

IBC-13 president and general manager Boots Anson-Roa was slapped yesterday with a fine equivalent to her one-month salary after the Office of the Ombudsman found out that she misrepresented a television blocktimer over the coverage rights of the Philippine Basketball Association.

Ombudsman Aniano Desierto said the administrative charges against the actress was also downgraded from dishonesty to simple misconduct because it was established that her Dec. 1999 certification to VTV Corp. or Vintage Enterprises was not motivated by "malice or ill-will."

Vintage and GMA-7 fought over the bidding for exclusive rights to air the PBA games. During the bidding, Vintage was given the chance by the PBA to show that it has existing contracts with IBC-13 to provide a three-year airtime for PBA games.

Roa, however, issued a director’s certification which stated that the IBC Board had "confirmed" the existence of Vintage’s needed airtime, even if in truth, the board has yet to discuss the same, but which was eventually granted to Vintage.

"It was a business judgment call on her part, so to speak. As president and general manager of IBC-13, Roa’s primordial concern is to be able to raise and generate more revenue to IBC, to ensure its capability as a business enterprise which she eventually did, when she extended help to VTV in its PBA bid," the Ombudsman stated.

Mary Susan Guillermo, director of the Administrative Adjudication Bureau, said the penalty of dismissal was too "excessive" because Roa merely saved a possible loss of revenue for the government-run network.

"Even assuming that a lapse on decision making may have been committed by Roa, this would merely be an error of judgment and not a serious misconduct. The term serious misconduct implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment," she wrote in her three-page comment.

Graft prober Plaridel Bohol earlier recommended a penalty of dismissal from the service for Roa, but this was modified by Guillermo who said this was "too harsh a penalty."

"For serious misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence showing that the acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by intention to violate the law, we find this essential requisite lacking in the instant case," Guillermo said.