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. 97 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE ON VIGOR D. MENDOZA
II, BOARD MEMBER, LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS
This resolves the complaint filed with the
Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption ("PCAGC" or
"Commission") on November 3, 1998, by one Isagani C. Reyes, charging
Vigor D. Mendoza II, a board member of the Land Transportation
Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and at that time its
Officer-in-Charge, with violation of Sec. 3(a), Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 3019, as amended, and Sec. 4(c), R.A. No. 6713, for issuing a
memorandum dated October 29, 1998, under his sole signature, ordering
the respective heads of the Technical and Legal Divisions, LTFRB, to
receive all PUB applications for Certificate of Public Convenience
(CPC) for routes entering Metro Manila and to set for hearing all
pending cases, contrary to the Board's existing moratorium policy
thereon.
Finding sufficient basis to commence an administrative investigation
against respondent, the PCAGC issued an order dated November 11, 1998,
requiring him to file his answer/counter-affidavit.
On December 29, 1998, respondent filed his counter-affidavit averring
the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
In its report, styled "Resolution", the PCAGC stated as follows:
"The
only issue in this case is whether or not the act of respondent in
issuing the memorandum in question, referred to as Memo hereafter,
violated RA No. 3019, as amended and RA No. 6713.
"Excepted from the coverage
thereof were (a) applications for extensions of validity for valid and
subsisting CPCs; (b) applications for approval of the sales and
transfers of valid and subsisting CPCs; (c) applications for CPCs on
bus routes in Metro Manila other than EDSA or any portion thereof
determined by the DOTC, LTFRB and the MMDA as still deficient in
transport services and not traffic congested or adversely affected by
ongoing traffic rationalization policies, projects and measures (P. 6,
Records)
"Subsequently, in its . . . (MC)
No. 97-009 dated August 6, 1998, the LTFRB reimposed the aforecited
moratorium 'on the acceptance, processing and resolution of all
applications, including those pending, for certificates of public
convenience for the operation of buses in Metro Manila and on
provincial routes whether entering Metro Manila or terminating outside
the periphery of the metropolis, given the fact that those issued CPCs
terminating outside Metro Manila have been entering Metro Manila as far
as Cubao and other points inside Metro Manila and also the difficulty
of monitoring their operations to insure compliance with the terms and
conditions of their franchises.' It was also provided therein that the
exceptions under MC-No. 95-013 shall remain. (Pp. 7 and 8, Records).
"The two (2) issuances involving
policy matter were signed by Board Chairman Dante M. Lantin and Board
Member Nabor C. Gaviola (MC No. 95-013) and by all three Board Members
(MC No. 97-009), the Board being a collegial body.
"As respondent admitted in his
counter-affidavit, there has been no amendment to the moratorium policy
of the Board under Memorandum Circular Nos. 95-013 and 97-009 and '(It)
is very much in place and effective'.
'Notwithstanding said admission,
respondent still issued the memorandum in question under his sole
signature.
"A closer look at said
memorandum disclosed that whether it is an internal office order or
otherwise, its net effect is a policy change effectively lifting the
moratorium policy since the Board can now accept applications for CPCs
routes entering Metro Manila and hold hearings for the pending
applications for CPCs for said routes.
"Sec. 3 (a) of R.A. No. 3019, as
amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices
Act, provides as follows:
'Sec. 3.
'(a)
"Likewise, it is provided in
Sec. 4 (c) of R.A. No. 6713, otherwise known as the 'Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees', to wit
'Sec. 4.
xxx
'(c)
"Now, we shall peruse
respondent's justifications for issuing said memorandum.
"1.
"To support the foregoing,
respondent cited the cases of Crow Transport Services, Inc., vs. BLTB,
et al. which were granted CPCs on January 13, 1998 and April 2, 1998,
respectively, when the moratorium was in effect.) Pp. 34-49, Records)
"However, a reading of the
Decision of the Crow case revealed that one of the considerations
thereof is the recommendation of the DOTC, through Undersecretary
Primitivo C. Cal, to give said application and other pending
applications similarly situated favorable action. (Emphasis supplied)
This shows that the action thereof was in line with the allowable
exceptions under Memorandum Circular No. 95-013 rather than a disregard
or effective amendment of the moratorium policy as respondent alleged.
"2.
"The Copies of Board issuances
that respondent annexed in his counter-affidavit in support thereof
(Pp. 30-32, Records), involved routine procedures of established
policies unlike the memorandum in question in subject of which is in
conflict with an existing moratorium policy.
"3.
"The moratorium policy as
provided in Memorandum Circular Nos. 95-013 and 97-009 is clear on its
coverage and exceptions. If respondent saw the need for transparency
and due process, what he should have done was to issue a memorandum
enjoining strict adherence to the provisions of the two memorandum
circulars, if it was really his intention to keep effective the
moratorium policy.
"4.
"This is an idle, if not
irresponsible, statement of respondent because it is so bereft of
truth. His memorandum, which was a direct order to the heads of the
Board's Technical Evaluation and Legal Divisions, effectively lifted
the existing moratorium policy by opening bus routes to Metro Manila
through acceptance of applications for CPC and holding of hearings
therefore.
"5.
"Respondent's reason is beside
the point. His precipitate action in issuing the memorandum in question
paves the way for a climate favorable to the commission of graft to
creep in as numerous bus operators fight it out over the lucrative but
congested Metro Manila route, thereby compounding the already chaotic
traffic situation thereat.
"It is clear from the foregoing
that respondent's justifications were far from plausible, much less
credible, and that this act of issuing under his sole signature the
memorandum dated October 29, 1998, which effectively amended an
existing policy of the LTFRB, a collegial body, was irregular and
unlawful, and constitutes grave misconduct in violation of Sec. 3 (a).
R.A. No. 3019, as amended and Sec. 4 (c), R.A. No. 6713."
In the light of the foregoing considerations, the PCAGC recommended that the respondent be dismissed from the service.
After a careful review of the records of the case, I am inclined to agree with the recommendation of the PCAGC and the premises upon which it is based.
WHEREFORE, and as recommended by the Presidential Commission against Graft and Corruption, respondent VIGOR D. MENDOZA II, Board Member, Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board, Department of Transportation and Communications, is hereby DISMISSED from service, effective upon his receipt of this order.
SO ORDERED.
November 23, 1999
chan robles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.