Reta vs. Castigador: Ombudsman fires customs collector

By Antonio Ajero
THE OMBUDSMAN dismissed from the service an acting district collector of customs in the Port of Davao, after finding him guilty of grave misconduct in an administrative complaint filed by a Davao City businessman.
Ordered dismissed from the service is lawyer Anju Nereo Concepcion Castigador after being convicted in the case filed by businessman Rodolfo C. Reta almost three years ago for “grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and violation of Republic Act No. 6713, also known as The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.”
Also dismissed for the same offense in a  24-page decision by the Office of the Ombudsman Mindanao signed by graft investigator and prosecution officer 1 Marilou B. Unabia was acting assistant wharfinger Alicodsaman P. Dimasicil.
The decision was approved by Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao Humphrey T. Monteroso after the same was reviewed by Assistant Ombudsman Rodolfo M. Elman and Director IV Maria Iluminada S. Lapid-Viva.
The same decision also meted the penalty of suspension for six months on acting customs examiners Lerrie L. Natividad and Moctar S. Amir, co-accused, for committing “conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service.”
“All these penalties are pursuant to Rule 10 of the Revised   Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,” according the decision.
The Ombudsman directed the Customs Commissioner (Rozzano Rufino Biazon) to immediately implement the penalties in accordance with Memorandum Circular No. 01, Series of 2006 of the Ombudsman.
The case filed by Reta stemmed from the sudden closure by Castigador of the Designated Examination Area (DEA) contracted by the Bureau of Customs inside the Acquarius Contrainer Yard solely owned by Reta. The DEA operation in a portion of Reta’s container yard is covered by a memorandum of agreement between him and the BOC. The MOA was signed on January 9, 2009 between Reta and then BOC commissioner Napoleon  L. Morales   for a term of 25 years, free of charge.
The dispute between Reta and Castigador was triggered by the arrival on February 20, 2010 of 40 containers said to contain 320 bags per container of construction materials from Thailand on board the vessel Matthias Claudi.
On February 26, 2010, complainant Reta instructed his counsel Manuel Quibod to report to Castigador that the cargo had been granted gate passes despite the fact that they have not been examined yet as recommended by customs inspector and x-ray operator Nilo Lim.
Instead of acting on the irregularities reported to him by Reta’s lawyer, Castigador handed a letter stopping the examination of cargoes by the DEA inside Reta’s container yard and thus transferring the examination of cargo to the area of the Philippine Ports Authority. Castigador’s letter accused Reta of refusing to allow the examination of the cargo at his container yard. This was denied by Reta, saying that it was absurb for him to do so since it was his business to examine and strip the cargo.
As a result of the closure of the DEA in his yard, Reta petitioned the court for a temporary restraining order and filed an administrative complaint with the Ombudsman. He accused Castigador and his men of eliminating him in order to cover up for smuggling and other illegal activities in the port.
At one-time, the Court ordered Castigador arrested for contempt of court for defying its order to use the DEA inside Reta’s container yard again.
The cargo from Thailand which was misdeclared as construction materials turned out to be contraband rice.
In finding Castigador  guilty of the administrative charges levelled against him and the three others by  Reta, the Ombudsman found  certain questionable acts involved in the case.
 It said that the issuance of the gate passes even before the 100-percent examination recommended by x-ray inspector Nilo Lim was irregular.
The record shows the shipment arrived at the DEA only on February 26, 2010 and yet, the gate passes were prepared two days ahead of the receipt of the shipment in the DEA for examination and were already signed as received by the consignee’s representative- a certain Michael Corong, broker of consignee Rapzel General Merchandise, even before the conduct of the 100-percent examination as recommended.
“Respondent Castigador, in allowing this irregular practice of preparing gate passes prior to inspection of the shipment allegedly to facilitate the process within the ACY DEA in effect agrees with such irregular practice. The control mechanism at the Port of Davao then leaves much to be desired,” the Mindanao Ombudsman stated.
The act of Dimasicil in signing on the four gate passes amounts to grave misconduct, the Ombudsman said.
It noted that the shipment consigned to RAPZEL  was not released on account of the four gate passes, as records would show that respondents, with the use of force, effected the release of the shipment from Reta’s ACY premises to the PPA area where the examination  was done.
The Ombudsman added that the letter of Castigador transferring the DEA from  the ACY to PPA was done without lawful authority. It said that Castigador on his own cannot suspend or revoke the MOA which was signed by the BOC commissioner and Reta.
The Ombudsman also said that Castigador’s failure to file a criminal case against consignee Rapzel for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code is tantamount to giving unwarranted benefits to the company.
“It is grave misconduct as the act complained of is inspired by an intention to violate the law, or constitute a flagrant disregard of well-known legal rules,” the decision said.
“It is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, wilful in character and implies wrongful intent and not a mere error of judgment,” it added.
The Ombudsman also castigated Castigador for  failure to file the case in court, saying it was an act that sends the wrong signal to the importers and runs counter to the government’s drive to run after smugglers.