The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed the dismissal from the service of a ranking officer of the Bureau of Immigration (BI) in connection with an anomaly involving the issuance of the special study permits (SSP) for foreign students.
In a 10-page decision penned by Associate Justice Nina Antonio-Valenzuela issued on January 22, the CA’s Eleventh Division dismissed the petition filed BI-Baguio Acting Alien Control Officer Antonio Prieto seeking the reversal of the Ombudsman’s ruling issued on July 18, 2011, which found him guilty of dishonesty and ordered his removal from office.
While it upheld Prieto’s dismissal, the CA modified the Ombudsman’s findings saying that the petitioner was guilty of gross neglect of duty and not dishonesty.
“Due to the petitioner Prieto’s reliance on the work of his subordinates, the petitioner Prieto did not notice the irregularities in the special study permits, indicating the reuse of the official receipts. The petitioner Prieto’s acts showed a thoughtless disregard of his duty as the issuing officer and ranking officer of BI-Baguio, and the lack of even the slightest care in the issuance of the special study permits,” the ruling said.
Under Rule 10, Section 50 of the Civil Procedure, gross neglect of duty is categorized as a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service.
The case stemmed from the complaints filed by a certain Jose Yu Jr. against Prieto and his subordinates, Myra Santiago and Verna Soriano, accusing them of repeatedly reusing the same official receipts as supporting documents for applications for SSP at the BI and pocketing the money actually paid by the foreign students.
For his part, Prieto admitted signing the permits after the payments were made but said he did not have direct participation in the preparation of the SSP and did not collect payments for it.
Prieto added that his only participation was merely affixing his signature on the SSP and that he relied on Santiago and Soriano that the permits presented to him for signature were in order.
The Ombudsman subsequently found Prieto and Santiago guilty of the offense and ordered their dismissal from the service.
“A head of office who did not prepare an official document, but merely signed based on the recommendation of his subordinates, which official document turned out to be containing false information, is liable for gross neglect of duty,” the CA ruled.
“The petitioner Prieto was guilty of gross neglect of duty when the petitioner signed and issued the special study permits, and did not detect that the officials receipts indicated in the special study permits were reused,” it added.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Ricardo Rosario and Perpetua.