THE Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed the order issued by the Office of the Ombudsman, which found Al Vitangcol III, former Metro Rail Transit Authority (MRTA) general manager, administratively liable for attempting to extort $30 million from Czeh firm Inekon.
In a 23-page decision penned by Associate Justice Pedro Corales, the Court’s Eight Division denied the petitioner for review filed by Vitangcol seeking the reversal of the Ombudsman’s joint order issued on February 12, 2016, and June 14, 2016.
The assailed decision found Vitangcol guilty of two counts each of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and unlawful solicitation, and imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement, benefits and perpetual disqualification from holding office.
The appellate court did not give credence to Vitangcol’s defense that the Ombudsman has lost disciplinary authority over him, as he was no longer a public officer at the time the complaint was filed and the case was rendered moot and academic by his resignation prior to its filing.
Vitangcol resigned from his post on May 27, 2014, while the complaint against him was filed on June 23, 2014.
The charges are in relation to the awarding of the contract for the P3.7-billion ($80.16-million) MRT 3 expansion project in 2012.
The appellate court also dismissed Vitangcol’s claim of political persecution for exposing anomalies committed by some officials of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) in connection with the operations of MRT 3.
It held that Vitangcol’s attempts to extort money from Inekon and compel the company to enter into a joint venture agreement were sufficiently proven by Czech Ambassador Josef Rychtar and Inekon representative Joseph Husek’s sworn statements.
It noted that the statements sufficiently detailed how the meetings were conducted, the proposals made and the amount asked by Vitangcol for the contract.
“Husek and Rychtar would not have normally thought about these details if they were not telling the truth,” the CA said.
“Besides, Husek and Rychtar’s statements are notarized documents accorded with the presumption of regularity as to their due execution. Only clear and convincing evidence can overturn this presumption but non is extant in the records,” it added.
The CA noted that Vitangcol failed to present any evidence to counter the declarations of Huses and Rychtar.
The appellate court also did not give weight to Vitangcol’s claim that he had been cleared from liability during the investigation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
It explained that the petitioner failed to present official issuance from the NBI clearing him from extortion attempts
“Finally, we stress that no exceptional situation, including the alleged persecution rather than good faith prosecution, appears here. There is no showing of any grand design or other manifestation of ill will that unduly impelled the finding of administrative liabilities herein assailed,” the CA noted.
“Similarly, there is no indication that Vitangcol’s dismissal from service was motivated by spite or ill will, or merely a part of a political propaganda. Not a scintilla of proof was presented to substantiate all these allegations,” it added.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Celia Librea-Leagogo and Amy Lazaro.
Inekon is a Czech company engaged in the supply of light rail vehicles.