ChanRobles Virtual law Library
PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
A collection of Philippine laws, statutes and codes not included or cited in the main indices of the Chan Robles Virtual Law Library.
:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 12 -
DISMISSING EDILLO C. MONTEMAYOR, DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 3,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, FROM THE SERVICE WITH
FORFEITURE OF ALL GOVERNMENT BENEFITS
This refers to the letter-complaint
addressed to the Philippine Consulate General in San Francisco,
California, U.S.A., by one Luis Bundalian, dated July 15, 1995, against
Edillo C. Montemayor, OIC Regional Director of Region III, Department
of Public Works and Highways, for alleged unexplained wealth in
violation of Sec. 8, R.A. No. 3019, as amended.
Quoted hereunder are the facts of the case and the findings and
recommendation of the Presidential Commission Against Graft and
Corruption (PCAGC) as culled from its Resolution.
"Hearings were held on May 29, July 24 and November 14, 1996; January
24, February 27 and March 13, 1997. During all these hearings,
complainant never appeared neither was there any appearance by counsel
for him. His true address in the Philippines could not be ascertained.
Respondent likewise never appeared personally despite notice, but was
represented by counsel.
"The alleged accusations/charges in the complaint are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
"In the Order of the Commission dated February 15, 1996, respondent was
directed to submit his Statement of Assets and Liabilities, Income Tax
Returns and his Personal Data Sheet but up to the present time he has
failed to do so. He submitted only his Service Record.
"Due to his failure and refusal to submit his Statement of Assets,
Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), the Commission on March 11, 1996
wrote the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon requesting him to furnish this
Commission with copies of the SALN of respondent for the past three (3)
years — 1992, 1993 and 1994 (p. 8, Records). In reply, the Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon claimed that respondent failed to submit his SALN
for calendar years 1992, 1993 and 1994 (p. 18, Records).
"Failure to file Statement of Assets and Liabilities is a violation of
Sec. 8 of Republic Act 6713 and is punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding five (5) years or a fine not exceeding P5,000.00 or both
under Sec. 11, par. (a) of said law. Furthermore, Sec. 11, par. (b)
thereof reads, thus:
'(b)
The Commission also wrote DPWH Secretary Vigilar inquiring as to how
many times respondent travelled abroad and in his answer dated April
18, 1996, he stated that respondent was sent on official travel to
Indonesia on January 11-14, 1994, and that he had no other official
travel recorded for the period from 1994 to 1995 (P. 16, Records).
"The Commission will now resolve the complaint on the basis of the
evidence on record.
"The complainant submitted the following evidence, to wit:
1.
2.
3.
"The respondent submitted the following evidence, to wit:
1.
2.
3.
"Respondent
is being charged of violating Sec. 8, R.A. No. 3019, as amended, for
having acquired a property in Burbank, California, worth $195,000.00
which, as mentioned by the Graft Investigation Officer (GIO), Office of
the Ombudsman, in the Sworn Statement of respondent given on April 11,
1995, at the rate of P20.00 for every dollar, the property would be
worth at the very least, P3,900,000.00 and on the basis of respondent's
income tax return from 1988 to 1991 do not indicate that he could
afford to acquire said property (p. 100, Records). Even with
respondent's annual income of P168,648.00 in 1993 as listed in his
Service Record dated May 24, 1996, which was finally submitted to the
Commission on January 15, 1997, by his counsel, after repeated demands,
respondent could not afford to buy such a house, unless he had other
sources of income. The burden of proof is now shifted to respondent to
present evidence, documentary or otherwise, to rebut the charge which
he, however, refused or failed to do.
"As may be gathered from the
documents enclosed in the letter-complaint, namely, the Grant Deed and
the Special Power of Attorney, respondent and his wife were named as
grantees of a piece of real property located at 907 North Bel Aire
Drive, Burbank, Los Angeles, California, which transaction was
denominated as purchase (pp. 1 & 3, Records).
"In his said sworn statement,
respondent admitted that the said property at 907 North Bel Aire Drive,
Burbank, Los Angeles, California, is in his and his wife's names but he
claimed that the true owner thereof is his sister-in-law, Estela D.
Fajardo. His explanation was lengthy but can be summarized, thus: that
because of the unsettled conditions in the government service in 1991,
respondent's wife sought the help of her family in the U.S. for their
possible emigration thereat. Upon being advised by an immigration
lawyer in the United States, that it would be a lot easier if the
applicant had a real property thereat under their name, respondent's
sister-in-law said that she was acquiring a property in Burbank,
California, but because she was disqualified to purchase said property
under her name due to an existing mortgage on a property in Palmdale,
Los Angeles County, previously acquired in installment and had not yet
been fully paid, an internal arrangement was made and said property was
placed in respondent and wife's name (pp. 100 & 101, Records).
"Respondent's explanation is
unusual, at most. Since it is largely unsubstantiated as he refused and
failed to present convincing proof to disprove the allegation that the
property in Burbank, California, belongs to him, it is, thus,
far-fetched and unbelievable, besides being self-serving.
"The counsel for respondent,
instead of adducing evidence to prove respondent's explanation, exerted
more effort in filing pleadings, including a motion to dismiss on the
ground of forum-shopping which the Commission denied because 'it
appears that the cases dismissed by the Ombudsman are all criminal
cases. Since the case filed with the Commission is an administrative
case, the Commission is of the opinion and so holds that this is not
forum-shopping' (P. 50, Records). Furthermore, considering that the
function of the Commission is fact-finding in nature, to grant
respondent's motion would be to deprive the President of his authority
to discipline presidential appointees.
"As has been mentioned earlier,
respondent failed and refused to submit his Statement of Assets and
Liabilities and Networth as well as his Income Tax Return. In every
hearing, counsel for respondent would promise to submit respondent's
SALN and other pertinent documents in the next hearing but counsel
always failed to do so, except the Service Record of the respondent.
Finally, in his counsel's Manifestation and Motion dated October 21,
1996, or eight (8) months after the Commission's initial order
requiring respondent to file copies of his Statement of Assets and
Liabilities for the last three (3) years, he gave the lame excuse 'that
retained copies of his SAL were submitted before the Fact-Finding and
Investigation Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman' (P. 6, Records).
However, to date, respondent has failed to submit to the Commission his
Statement of Assets and Liabilities.
"Sec. 5(e), Rule 131, Rules of Court, on disputable presumptions, provides
that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.
"In brief, it has been
established that respondent acquired a property in Burbank, Los
Angeles, California, U.S.A., on May 27, 1993, worth $195,000.00 and
that his annual salary at that time was only P168,648.00. At the then
exchange rate of P20.00 for every dollar, the cost of said property
would at least be P3,900,000.00. To acquire said property, respondent
would have to work straight for more than 23 years with such salary and
would have to save every centavo thereof.
"Hence, it can be rightly said
that the aforesaid acquisition was manifestly out of proportion to his
salary and thus rebuttably presumed to have been unlawfully acquired
pursuant to Sec. 2, R.A. No. 1379, 'AN ACT DECLARING FORFEITURE IN
FAVOR OF THE STATE ANY PROPERTY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED
BY ANY PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AND PROVIDING FOR THE PROCEDURE
THEREFORE'.
"Under Sec. 8 of R.A. 3019,
it is provided that 'if a public official has been found to have
acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of
other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of
proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact
shall be a ground for dismissal or removal.' It states further that
'any ostentatious display of wealth including frequent travel abroad of
a non-official character by any public official when such activities
entail expenses evidently out of proportion to legitimate income shall
likewise be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section. .'
"WHEREFORE,
premises considered, this Commission finds Mr. Edillo C. Montemayor,
Director, Regional Office No. 3, Department of Public Works and
Highways, guilty as charged and recommends . . . that he be ordered
DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all government benefits.
"SO RESOLVED."
After a careful review of the evidence on record, this Office concurs with the findings and recommendation of the Commission.
WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption, respondent Edillo C. Montemayor, Director, Regional Office No. 3, Department of Public Works and Highways, is hereby ordered DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all government benefits.
Done in the City of Manila, this 24th day of August, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and ninety eight.
chan robles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.